Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the  violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that an officer has no obligation to wait for a defendant to speak to an attorney before charging a defendant with refusal to submit. Furthermore, the defendant’s delay in giving a definite answer as to whether or not he would take a chemical test constituted a constructive refusal to submit. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the charge against the defendant.