Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (failing to obey a traffic control device).  Defendant claimed that the prosecution by the police officer constituted the unathorized practice of law because the state did not furnish a licensed attorney to represent its side.  The Court held that allowing the matter to go forward without a lawyer present to represent the state did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law because the police officer did not engage in any of the actions which would be expected of a lawyer.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.