The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant argued that she was deprived of her right to a confidential phone call because there was a female matron in the cellblock where she made the call. In order to demonstrate that a confidential phone call violation occurred, demonstrable prejudice must be shown. State v. Calcieri, 730 A.2d 11, 13 (R.I. 1999). In Calcieri, the court observed that the presence of a police officer during a call made to an attorney or to a friend with the intent for the friend to contact an attorney may amount to demonstrable prejudice. The Panel held that the Defendant failed to show there was demonstrable prejudice where the Defendant tried to call her brother and did not indicate that she intended her brother to contact an attorney. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation.