Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop signs). Defendant claimed that the citing officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and further contended that because he was not penalized for violating § 31-20-9 it could not constitute a basis for the stop. However, the District Court held that reasonable grounds existed to stop the defendant because the officer observed the defendant violate § 31-20-9 when he failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Furthermore, after stopping the defendant, the officer observed indicia of intoxication, sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for the officer to believe that the defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence, because the defendant slurred his speech, emitted an odor of alcohol from his breath, had bloodshot and watery eyes, was unsteady on his feet, and failed field sobriety tests. The failure of the magistrate to impose a penalty for violating § 31-20-9 does not affect whether reasonable grounds existed for refusal to submit. Accordingly the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.