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) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-9 (operation without proof of insurance). The defendant claimed that the arresting officer coerced him into refusing the test by telling him that if he refused then he would only go to court a few times and the charge would be dismissed. To the contrary, the officer testified that over his ten years of policing he has never offered any legal advice. The Court held this was substantial, probative, and reliable evidence to support the trial magistrate’s decision that the defendant was not coerced by the arresting officer. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the charge against the defendant.