Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 §§ 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and 31-14-3 (conditions requiring reduced speed).  After submitting to two breath tests, Defendant was asked to submit to a blood test, which he refused.  Defendant argued that he denied his due process rights when the police asked him to submit to a second chemical test because the “Rights for the Use at Station” form’s language – “I request you submit to a chemical test” – fails to inform a suspected impaired driver that he or she must submit to more than one chemical test.  The Defendant argued that, in order to satisfy due process, the language should be changed to track § 31-27-2.1, which allows for the administration of two chemical tests. The Panel explained that the use of the singular article “a” is used because the form is read before a single chemical test for either alcohol or drugs is administered.  The Panel noted that there is no statutory or constitutional requirement that suspected impaired drivers be told they may be subjected to multiple tests.  The Panel noted that the Officer read the Defendant the Rights for Use at the Station form before both tests and that the Defendant was fully apprised of the consequences of refusing to submit to the second test and willingly refused.  The Panel held that none of the Defendant’s due process rights were violated and accordingly sustained the charged violations.