The State appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to dismiss the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The State argued that the trial magistrate erred in his decision to dismiss the charge because the Defendant’s right to an independent examination pursuant to R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-3 had been compromised. Here, once the Defendant indicated to the Officer that he would not submit to a chemical test, the Officer took the Defendant to Newport Hospital, where he requested that a doctor perform a blood alcohol test. Subsequently, the Officer requested that the sample be preserved for future investigative purposes. The State, relying on State v. Collins, 679 A.2d 862 (1996) argued that the Defendant’s right to a physical examination was not compromised because, like in Collins where the blood test was performed by hospital personnel, the Officer here did not “commandeer” the Defendant’s blood. Here, the drawing and testing of the Defendant’s blood was done by hospital personnel, rather than at the direction of the Officer, and the blood would have been preserved pursuant to hospital policy regardless of the Officer’s request. As such, the Panel reversed the trial magistrate’s decision to dismiss the charge because the substantial rights of the Defendant were not compromised.