Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-30 (text messaging while driving). Defendant was seen by the citing officer looking “up and down” from his cell phone while operating his vehicle on Route 95 North. Defendant provided evidence from his cell phone company that he had not sent or received any text messages at the time of the stop, and instead argued he had been using a GPS application. Defendant argued that using a GPS application on a cell phone did not constitute “texting while driving” as defined in the aforementioned statute. The District Court, conducting a de novo review of the statutory interpretation analysis conducted by the Appeals Panel (finding that the use of a GPS application was the equivalent of receiving a text message), concluded that using a cell phone for GPS purposes did not constitute texting while driving under the plain meaning of the statute. The District Court noted that using a GPS application was not a form of communication between persons; instead, using a GPS application constituted the “modern version of looking at a map.” Accordingly, the District Court found in favor of the Defendant and reversed the Appeals Panel’s decision.