Defendant appealed the decision of the hearing judge denying a motion for relief from judgment for a violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-20-12 (stopping for school bus required). Sections 31-20-12 and 31-20-13, read together, require that a motorist stop for a school bus transporting children while flashing lights are engaged unless the motorist and bus are traveling in opposite lanes and separated by a median. In support of the motion for relief from judgment the defendant argued that he had newly discovered evidence that the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) planned to place a median strip at the site of the violation. He admitted, however, that the median was not in place at the time he was cited. The Panel explained that Rule 20(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the Traffic Tribunal permits relief based on newly discovered evidence only if the evidence is material such that it would probably change the outcome of the proceedings and if the evidence cited was not discoverable at the time of the original hearing by the exercise of ordinary diligence. The Panel held that the evidence the defendant offered was immaterial because at the time he was cited the median strip was not in place. Therefore, it would make no difference whether the DOT had planned to construct a median in the future because the defendant was not exempt from the obligations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-12 at the time of the violation. Additionally, the defendant failed to meet his burden that the “newly discovered” evidence was not available at the time of the original hearing. Accordingly, the Panel denied the motion for relief of judgment and sustained the violation against the defendant.