Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate 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’s reading of the “Rights for Use at Scene” and “Rights for Use at Station” was sufficient to inform the defendant of the penalties which would result from refusing to submit to the chemical test even though the suspension of the defendant’s commercial driver’s license was not specifically enumerated on the “rights” forms. The rights forms list the loss of the base operator’s license as a consequence of a refusal and, therefore, the forms sufficiently informed the defendant of the loss of any supplemental driving privileges. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the defendant.