Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel claiming it erred when it affirmed the trial judge’s verdict finding him guilty of violating R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-12 (Stopping For School Bus Required).  Defendant claimed that the citation must be dismissed because he passed the bus while it was in Pawtucket and therefore the Lincoln Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a citation for an offense committed outside the town of Lincoln.  The District Court reviewed the trial record transmitted to it by the RITT and noted many significant portions of the testimony regarding the location of the school bus at the time defendant committed the offense were missing.  The District Court pointed out the ambiguity and conflicting testimony regarding the precise location of the school bus, ultimately holding that the City did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the offense was committed in the officer’s jurisdiction (Lincoln), but more likely was committed in Pawtucket.  Further, although the Lincoln officer testified he stopped defendant and issued the citation in Lincoln, his testimony describing his location tended to show that the officer must have been in Pawtucket, not Lincoln, when writing the citation.  Because failing to stop for a school bus is a civil violation not subject to arrest, the Court held the officer did not have authority to pursue the defendant into Pawtucket to issue the citation.  Accordingly, the District Court held that the Appeals Panel decision was contrary to law and clearly erroneous in view of the record, and reversed the decision of the Appeals Panel.