Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate 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 §12-7-20 affords a defendant an opportunity to make a phone call, but not the right to the presence of counsel when making the decision of whether or not to submit to a chemical test. The Court held that although no counsel was present, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to make a call to an attorney and chose not to. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.