The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-9 (operating without evidence of insurance), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-8-1 (operation of vehicles without evidence of insurance), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27.1-4 (aggressive driving), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal requires), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to traffic control devices), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop sign), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-1 (right half of road). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred in sustaining the speeding violation because “although the Officer testified to his training, there was no evidence presented as to how he estimated [the Defendant’s] speed or that the speedometer used to estimate [the Defendant’s] speed was tested.” Accordingly, the Panel reversed the trial magistrate’s decision and dismissed the speeding violation.