Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). The District Court held that the decision of the Appeals Panel finding that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence was not clearly erroneous because the state presented five indicia that the defendant had operated under the influence, including: the defendant admitted to alcohol consumption, had watery and bloodshot eyes, emitted a strong odor of alcohol, was unsteady exiting the vehicle, and nearly hit a parked vehicle while attempting to pull over. Defendant had presented testimony by an expert witness stating that what appeared to be indicia of alcohol consumption were in fact manifestations of the defendant’s mental state. The District Court concluded that the expert testimony was immaterial to the charge of refusal to submit because a defendant may be penalized for refusing under § 31-27-2.1 as long as the officer observes sufficient indicia of intoxication to constitute reasonable grounds, even if it is later revealed that the indicia of intoxication were the result of some source other than alcohol or drug intoxication. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the decision of the Appeals Panel was not clearly erroneous but was supported by substantial evidence.