Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the underlying arrest was not supported by probable cause to believe the Defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Here, the Officer observed the Defendant to be speeding, as well as swerving. Once in contact with the Defendant, the Officer observed that the Defendant was “fumbling” with documents and that her vehicle and/or her person was emanating a strong alcoholic odor. The Officer further observed that the Defendant was slurring her speech, her eyes were “glassy,” she was unsteady on her feet, and she used the vehicle’s door to maintain her balance. The Officer also testified that there was what appeared to be vomit between the driver’s seat and driver’s side door. Noting that reasonable grounds and probable cause are “functionally equivalent,” the Panel held that Officer had probable cause to believe that the Defendant had operated the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.