Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant claimed the decision of the trial judge was affected by error of law and constituted an abuse of discretion because the town failed to successfully identify him at trial as the perpetrator of the charged violation. The Court held that there were enough facts on the record to infer that the person in court was the operator of the vehicle. Here, the Court concluded that the testimony of the citing officer that at the time he stopped the individual he identified him as the defendant, constituted an in-court identification. Further, the Court held that the defendant acknowledged he was the operator of the vehicle because he testified that the officer failed to issue him a summons and, in his testimony, said “I don’t believe I was going that fast . . . .” Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.