The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-10-27 (license to be carried and exhibited on demand) and § 31-47-9 (proof of financial security). The Defendant argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the Defendant knowingly operated without insurance given that the car was registered to someone else. The Panel held that the trial judge erred in sustaining the driving without insurance charge because there was no evidence that the Officer asked if the Defendant knew he was driving without insurance. Accordingly, the Panel reversed the trial judge’s decision and dismissed the charged violation.