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 the facts were sufficient—when measured against standards established in prior Supreme Court decisions—to affirm the appeals panel’s finding that the officer possessed reasonable grounds to believe the defendant had driven under the influence, as the defendant admitted he had consumed alcohol that night, had watery and bloodshot eyes, emitted the odor of alcohol, violated the traffic laws by speeding, and failed to properly execute field sobriety tests.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.