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). The Court held that, the officer was speaking in general terms and was not referring particularly to the defendant when he mentioned that sometimes he had doubts at the scene about whether the defendant was indeed under the influence of a controlled substance. The fact that he requested a preliminary breath test was “no[t] a factual support for Appellant’s contention that her medical condition gave [the officer] second doubts as to her level of intoxication.” Therefore, the charged violation was sustained.