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 Court held that § 12-7-20 (right to use telephone for call to attorney) also applies to civil cases, and the term “confidentiality” in that statute is clear and unambiguous and, thus, should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The Court held that the defendant’s phone calls were confidential because the officer was out of earshot range and could not hear what the defendant was saying. Furthermore, the defendant was given twenty minutes to attempt to contact an attorney. Though he was unsuccessful, he also spent much of that time contacting friends, and was not prejudiced by his inability to reach an attorney. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.