Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant argued that after she refused the preliminary breath test it was a violation of her rights for the officer to request that she take a second test in the barracks.  The Cour disagreed and held that the “none shall be given” language in § 31-27.2.1 is clearly in contemplation of a refusal of an actual breath test and that there is nothing in the statute to indicate that the legislature contemplated it applied to a preliminary breath test. See Almeida v. United States Rubber Co., 107 A.2d 330, 332 (R. I. 1954). “[I]t is clear that[,] the only test pondered by the legislature in drafting § 31-27.2.1 is the ‘official’ breath test conducted at a police station[;] if the legislature deems it appropriate for police to administer a test at the station after one has been administered at the scene, it would make little sense to hold that police cannot request for a motorist to submit to that test, simply because he or she refused a PBT.” Accordingly, the violation was sustained.