Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Defendant claimed the magistrate erred in applying the wrong fact-finding standard because he applied a subjective standard when he considered “what was in [the officer’s] mind at the time of the stop.” The Court held that the magistrate did not err and applied the proper objective test because the Court must incorporate the personal knowledge and experience of the police officer when determining the existence of reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.