Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-24-1 (times when lights required). The Defendant argued that the charge could not be sustained because there was no in-court identification of the Defendant as the operator of the vehicle. The Panel noted that the Defendant did not cite any sources to show that in-court identification is required, and held that the Defendant’s argument would fail even if he had cited a source because Defendant’s counsel indicated on the record that he was appearing “on behalf of” the Defendant and because the Officer testified that he “identified the driver [of the suspect vehicle]” as the Defendant. Accordingly, the Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was not affected by error of law and sustained the charged violation.