Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant argued, in part, that his appeal should be granted because the officers who stopped him were from North Kingstown and the moving violation and traffic stop occurred in East Greenwich, outside of the North Kingstown officers’ jurisdiction. Under the provisions of R.I.G.L. § 12-7-19 then in effect (the statute has since been amended), extra-territorial stops were only permissible where the officers making the stop would otherwise have the right to arrest a defendant, which is not the case for civil traffic violations such as the laned roadway violation alleged in this case.  At trial, the Defendant sought to introduce a map of the area in which the stop occurred, but the trial magistrate chose not to review it, instead finding the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the stop being within his jurisdiction to be credible and sufficient to sustain the charge against Defendant. The Appeals Panel affirmed, but did not mention whether the trial magistrate erred by declining to review a map of the area in which the stop occurred. On appeal to the District Court, Defendant challenged the propriety of that evidentiary ruling.  Because the Appeals Panel failed to address this issue of possible merit, the District Court remanded to the Appeals Panel for a decision on that issue.