Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant argued that the Court erred in relying on the trooper’s testimony that he was trained and experienced in the use of a radar unit. The District Court held that the trooper’s testimony satisfied the evidentiary requirements under the standard for admissibility of radar evidence pursuant to State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974). Accordingly, the decision of the trial magistrate was not clearly erroneous and the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.