The Defendant appealed the hearing magistrate’s decision to issue a preliminary license suspension at the arraignment on the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test).  The Defendant argued that language in the sworn report was misleading and contradicted statutory language found in §31-27-2.1.  Specifically, the Defendant argued that the sworn report indicated an immediate license suspension would follow from the refusal to submit a chemical test when the actual procedure is to first have the sworn report received and reviewed by a magistrate prior to any license suspension.  The Panel found, however, that a thorough review of the sworn report is not required by the statutory language and that the language in the sworn report was not misleading in this regard.