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 claimed that the officer should have been precluded from asking her to submit to a chemical test at the station because she had already refused to take a preliminary breath test (“PBT”) at the scene.  The District Court rejected the defendant’s arguments and held that the defendant’s refusal of a PBT did not prevent the officer from subsequently requesting the defendant to submit to a chemical test of her breath.  The Court went on to note that the language of § 31-27-2.1(a) stating “[n]o more than two (2) complete tests, one for the presence of intoxicating liquor . . . shall be administered,” did not restrict the number of tests that could be solicited.  Additionally, the officer complied with the “none shall be given” language of § 31-27-2.1(b) because the defendant was not given a test after she refused.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.