Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The defendant argued that the state failed to prove the violation by clear and convincing evidence because there was no in-court identification by the prosecution that he was the operator of the vehicle. The Court held  that the evidence on record showed that it was highly probable that the defendant was the operator of the vehicle and, thus, the state met its burden and proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was the operator. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation against the defendant.