Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L.  1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway).  Defendant claimed that the decision of the trial judge was clearly erroneous because the officer deviated from his training when he administered the field sobriety tests and did not comply with NHTSA guidelines.  The Court held that although field sobriety tests should be administered as closely as possible with NHTSA guidelines to ensure reliability, the officer’s failure to follow the NHTSA standards was relative and the tests should not be deemed unreliable due to incorrect instructions because the trial court determined that the deviations were minimal and that the defendant exhibited four clues of intoxication.  The Court noted that it lacked the authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and it must defer to the trial judge’s decision that the deviations were not substantial or prejudicial to the defendant.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation of § 31-27-2.1.