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). Defendant claimed that a North Kingstown police officer performed an extra-territorial stop, which was not permissible at the time of the stop (prior to a 2016 amendment of General Laws § 12-7-19) . At trial, Defendant attempted to introduce a map into evidence to show that an extra-territorial stop took place, but the trial judge refused to review the map. Upon reaching the District Court, the case was remanded to allow Defendant to fully litigate the territorial jurisdiction issue. On remand, the trial judge allowed Defendant to admit one map into evidence, but refused to admit a second map on authentication grounds. Defendant offered no testimony as to where on the map the stop allegedly took place. The trial judge found that the map admitted into evidence was unreliable, showing only “where people from the South County Tourism Council believe boundaries to be,” and that it did not, without supporting testimony, “provide [the trial court] with information as it relates specifically to the facts of this case.”  Accordingly, the trial judge relied upon the police officer’s testimony as to the location of the stop. The District Court held that the trial judge properly relied upon the officer’s testimony because Defendant failed to “present testimony identifying where, on the map, the violation occurred.” Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.