Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-1 (right half of road). The Court held that although the trial judge referred to the standard being used as reasonable suspicion, he did in fact apply the proper reasonable grounds standard. The Court held that the officer had reasonable grounds because the defendant drove erratically, crossed over the double yellow line, emitted the odor of alcohol on his breath, had red watery eyes, had difficulty producing his registration, had three empty beer cans in his car, and failed the field sobriety tests. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violations against the defendant.