Defendant appealed the Appeals Panel’s decision sustaining defendant’s violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (“prima facie limits”). Defendant argued that the court should adopt a different rule with respect to the admissibility of laser results than the rule set forth in State v. Sprague, 322 A2d. 36 (R.I. 1974), which involved the use of a radar device.  The District Court rejected that argument, holding that Sprague “announced a rule for the admissibility of the speed readings emitted by speed calculating devices,” not just for radar devices. Accordingly, the District Court rejected the Defendant’s proposed rule for laser devices and affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision.