The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s entry of a default judgment sustaining the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop signs), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-9 (proof of financial security). Here, the prosecuting officer failed to appear at the initial trial date and the charges were dismissed. Following the dismissal, the prosecuting officer secured an order vacating the dismissal of the Defendant’s charged violations and the case was scheduled for a trial, but no notice of the order to vacate or notice of a new trial date was sent to the Defendant.  When the Defendant failed to appear at the new trial date a default judgment was entered against him. The Defendant argued on appeal that the prosecuting officer violated Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for the Traffic Tribunal because he failed to file a motion to vacate the order dismissing the Defendant’s charged violations and instead engaged in ex parte communications with the trial judge to reinstate the Defendant’s violations. The Panel held that the trial judge abused her discretion by reinstating the charged violations without the required motion to vacate from the prosecuting officer. Accordingly, the Panel reversed the trial judge’s decision and dismissed the charged violations.