Defendant appealed the decision of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal trial court sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding – first offense). At trial, the testifying officer stated that he had received training in the use of the radar unit and that “prior to [his] patrol, it was calibrated both internally and externally, found to be in proper working order.” The Trial Magistrate asked the officer for clarification on when and how he tested the radar, to which he responded “we calibrated both internally and externally. Prior to my shift and after my shift, and found to be in proper working order.”  Under State v. Sprague, for a radar unit reading to be admissible at trial, the testifying officer must meet a two prong test – (1) that the unit was tested within a reasonable time by an appropriate method and (2) that the officer sets forth his/her training and experience in the use of the radar unit. Id. at 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (R.I. 1974). The trial judge found that the testimony satisfied both prongs required by Sprague and, as such, the radar unit reading was admissible and the charge sustained. Defendant filed an appeal. The Appeals Panel found the trial judge correctly determined that the officer’s testimony was sufficient to meet both prongs of the Sprague analysis, denied the appeal and sustained the violation.