Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Court held that the state proved by clear and convincing evidence that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was operating the motor vehicle based on the facts as they were known to him because when the officer arrived at the scene the defendant was walking from the scene of the accident and another officer testified that when he arrived at the scene the defendant was inside the vehicle. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.