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).  The Appeals Panel held that the officer’s presence during a confidential phone call did not prejudice the defendant and did not warrant dismissal because the defendant was speaking in another language, and the officer could not understand what the defendant was saying.  Accordingly, the defendant was afforded a confidential phone call and, thus, the violation was sustained.