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 chemical test). The Court held that the defendant was given the opportunity to make a confidential phone call despite the presence of emergency personnel in the room. Since there was reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record evidencing that the defendant exercised his right to a confidential phone call and the integrity of the defendant’s communications were not violated, the violation was sustained.