The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Defendant argued that the turn signal violation was not proven to a standard of clear and convincing evidence because there was no evidence presented that “any other traffic [was] affected by the movement” of his vehicle. The Panel noted that to sustain a turn signal violation, the prosecution must prove that the Defendant failed to use a turn signal, that other traffic was affected by the movement of the vehicle, and that the movement of the vehicle was not made with reasonable safety. The Panel held that because the prosecution did not introduce evidence that the Defendant’s movement affected other traffic or was made without reasonable safety, the turn signal violation must be dismissed.