Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel reversing the trial magistrate’s dismissal of the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The District Court held that the trial magistrate erred by choosing an incorrect legal standard, requiring the state to introduce evidence that the defendant was incapable of safely operating a vehicle. The Court held that the correct legal standard is whether the circumstances available to the arresting officer were sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The Court held that there was reasonable suspicion for the officer to believe that the defendant had operated a vehicle under the influence because the defendant had watery and bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and emitted an odor of alcohol on her breath. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations against the defendant.