The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of Department of Environment and Management Fish and Wildlife Regulation §20-1-12 (feeding wildlife prohibited).  The Defendant was issued a ticket for feeding geese in an apartment complex common area and was identified through an eyewitness account and video evidence.  The Defendant argued on appeal that the violation issuing officer could not properly identify the Defendant in the video because the video did not show the Defendant’s face and, therefore, the officer could only assume it was the Defendant.  The Panel noted that when a “witness has personal knowledge of the defendant, the witness’s subsequent identification of the defendant is reliable.”  See State v. Grant, 840 A.2d 541, 547 (R.I. 2004).  Here, the Panel found the officer had spoken with the Defendant in person over the same issue in the prior year and had personal knowledge of the defendant.  Therefore, the officer was able to properly identify the Defendant.  Furthermore, the trial magistrate determined it was the Defendant feeding the geese and the Panel cannot second guess that decision without viewing the evidence.  Ultimately, the Panel found the decision was not affected by error of law and supported by legally competent evidence.