Telephone Call

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the presence of the arresting officer, ten feet away from the defendant, when she was making the phone call did not prejudice the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant was not using the phone for the purpose of contacting an attorney and the state did not obtain any information from the phone call for use at trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Erin Salema, A.A. No. 06-99 (January 5, 2006).pdf

Telephone Call

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that where the officer read the defendant the Rights forms, she was sufficiently informed of her right to a confidential phone call. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. Erin Salema, A.A. No. 06-99 (January 5, 2006).pdf