Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  At trial, the Officer testified that he initially watched two vehicles leave the South Beach parking lot, one traveling at sixty-eight miles-per-hour and the second (Defendant’s vehicle) traveling at sixty-two miles-per-hour, in a twenty-five mile-per-hour zone.  Before stopping Defendant’s vehicle, however, the Officer pursued but lost the first vehicle, then went back to locate Defendant’s vehicle, a silver Mitsubishi with “wavy graphic lines.”  The Defendant argued that the Officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle because the Officer improperly identified his vehicle as the vehicle the Officer saw speeding.  The Panel noted that the trial judge concluded that the Officer had reasonable and articulable grounds to stop the Defendant’s vehicle because the Officer specifically described Defendant’s vehicle as the silver Mitsubishi with “wavy graphic lines” that he scanned traveling in excess of the posted speed limit.  The Panel held that the trial judge sustained the charge based upon legally competent evidence.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.