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 violations for turn signal required, obedience to traffic control devices, and obedience to stop sign because the summonses misidentified the vehicle and the summonses were given to the Defendant after the motor vehicle stop. The Panel held that the procedure was not unlawful because, although the summonses mislabeled the vehicle, the Defendant was not misled by the error. The Panel further held the procedure was not unlawful where the summonses were properly served to the Defendant’s residence. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violations because the procedure was not unlawful and the Defendant’s substantial rights had not been violated.