Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-13-4 (obedience to devices). The District Court held that because the trial magistrate relied on the officer’s testimony, as he was entitled to do, and because the defendant admitted to being the driver of the vehicle, the findings were not clearly erroneous in light of the probative, reliable and substantial evidence of record. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.