Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  Defendant argued that the Officer did not have reasonable grounds to ask him to submit to a chemical test.  The Panel noted that the Officer testified that the Defendant had bloodshot watery eyes, thick-tongued speech, smelled of alcohol, and had to support himself on his vehicle when attempting to stand.  The Panel explained that under the totality of the circumstances, the trial magistrate ruled on competent evidence that the Officer had reasonable grounds to ask the Defendant to submit to a chemical test.  However, the Panel dismissed the charge due to the lack of a sworn report.