Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that although the arresting officer could hear the defendant’s voice during her confidential phone call, it was made in a room with no audio-visual surveillance and the officer could not recollect what was said. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the charge against the defendant.