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 claimed that the trial judge took improper judicial notice on the issue of whether the defendant was afforded a confidential phone call because the judge relied on his own personal experiences instead of making credibility determinations based on the evidence presented at trial. The Court held that the trial judge relied on the officer’s testimony that he could not hear any of the defendant’s conversation to determine whether the defendant was afforded a confidential phone call and did not take improper judicial notice when he stated that he was familiar with the NCO room at the police barracks because he did not supply evidence of an essential element. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.