Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-12 (interval between vehicles).  Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was an error of law because there was not enough testimony to prove the violation.  The Panel noted that the Officer testified that the Defendant followed another vehicle at a high rate of speed, at a distance of about six or seven feet, in an active construction site.  The Panel held that this testimony satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant violated the statute.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.