Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.2 (“refusal to submit to chemical test”) and § 31-22-21.1 (“presence of open alcoholic beverage”). Defendant argued that the violations should have been dismissed because of a “perjured affidavit.” In his sworn affidavit the officer wrote that the defendant displayed “clues in all three (field sobriety) tests.” His trial testimony revealed that the defendant only displayed clues in two tests. In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the court held that allegations of negligent or innocent mistake are insufficient to attack the validity of an affidavit. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of a reckless disregard for the truth. Id. The Appeals Panel held that defendant had offered no offer of proof that the discrepancy was intentional or in a reckless disregard for the truth. The trial court had found credible the officer’s explanation that the discrepancy was a mistake because the officer may having been “typing too fast.” Accordingly, the decision of the trial court was affirmed.