Defendant appealed the decision if the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit).  The District Court held that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence without including the testimony about the field sobriety test (FST). The state decided to not include the FST because the defendant claimed she failed the FST due to her back problems. The Court noted that the state was not required by law to not include the FST results. However, the state relied on the defendant nearly getting into an accident, having watery and blood shot eyes, smelling of alcohol, and exhibiting a lack of steadiness to prove the defendant was operating her vehicle under the influence. Also, the Court found that it was immaterial whether or not the defendant has an innocent explanation for why she appeared under the influence.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.