The 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 chemical test). The Defendant argued that the Patrolman did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop of his vehicle, rendering the underlying stop unlawful. Here, the police department had received an anonymous tip with a detailed description of a vehicle that was operating in an erratic fashion. The Patrolman testified that when he made contact with the Defendant’s vehicle, which matched the description, he observed the vehicle drift into the passing lane on multiple occasions and noted that the Defendant’s continued operation on the road would, in his opinion, compromise public safety due to the “congested” traffic. The Panel held that the officer’s independent observations corroborating the anonymous tip of erratic operation provided the trial magistrate with sufficient evidence to find that the Patrolman’s stop of the vehicle was lawful based on reasonable suspicion. The Panel also rejected the Defendant’s argument that the evidence of the chemical test refusal must be suppressed because the trial magistrate dismissed the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway violation). The Panel continued that the trial magistrate’s dismissal of the laned roadway violation had no bearing on the refusal violation because the two statutes have distinct elements. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation.