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). The arresting officer came upon the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of his parked car in a convenience store parking lot, his head slumped over the steering wheel, talking to himself.  A clerk at the store informed the officer the defendant had pulled into the parking lot approximately 30-60 minutes prior to the officer’s arrival.  The arresting officer testified that the defendant had apologized for driving drunk, had watery, bloodshot eyes, had slurred speech, smelled of alcohol, and had performed poorly on field sobriety tests. The defendant challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to conclude that he had been operating under the influence because of the time between his alleged operation and the officer’s observations.  After noting this issue had not been preserved for appeal, the Court held that, under a totality of the circumstances analysis, the officer had more than reasonable suspicion to infer the defendant had been driving under the influence.  Therefore, the decision of the Appeals Panel was not an error of law, in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision and upheld the conviction.