Defendant appealed a decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Police responded to a call from a D’Angelo’s sandwich shop employee that indicated that Defendant may have been driving under the influence. Based on the vehicle registration number, a police officer located the vehicle in a parking lot at a different location. Defendant was found in the driver’s seat with the engine running. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer noticed a D’Angelo’s sandwich in the vehicle, and Defendant admitted that he “had just come from D’Angelo’s.”  Defendant argued that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant because the officer relied upon information from an anonymous tip. The District Court held that the statement given by a private citizen to the dispatch officer could be viewed as reasonably trustworthy because the caller, while unnamed, was identifiable and, therefore, not a “purely anonymous tipster.”  Moreover, the District Court indicated that tips may no longer require validation at trial in Terry-stop cases because the Supreme Court of the United States did not require such validation in Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014).  The District Court concluded that the information contained in the tip, combined with corroborating evidence, was sufficiently reliable to give the officer reasonable suspicion for the stop.  Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.