Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) . The District Court held that there is no requirement that the arresting officer show a defendant that a breathalyzer machine and operator were available at the time of refusal in order to sustain the charge of refusal to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.