Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27 2.1 (refusal to submit) and 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed the decision of the Appeals Panel was clearly erroneous because the officer did not have probable cause to arrest the motorist. After suggesting that the State might not be required to prove the existence of probable cause to arrest in a refusal case, the Court held that in this case probable cause existed to believe the defendant operated a vehicle under the influence because the defendant admitted to the consumption of alcohol, had bloodshot and watery eyes, emitted a strong odor of alcohol, swayed and used the vehicle for balance when exiting, was unable to keep the vehicle within the travel lane, and traveled with her hazard lights on. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation.