Telephone Call

The state appealed the decision of the trial judge dismissing the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that R.I.G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20 (right to use telephone) was ambiguous on its face and that when an arrestee is not given a phone call within the statutorily proscribed time period of one hour, dismissal of the charges should not be mandatory. Here, the delay was caused by two other motorists colliding with the arresting officer’s vehicle. Thus, it was physically impossible to afford the defendant an opportunity to make a call within a one hour period. Further, the arresting officer acted reasonably, given the exigent circumstances, by affording the defendant an opportunity to make a call as early as physically possible. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the trial judge and sustained the violation against the defendant.

Town of North Kingstown v. Brendon Beiber, C.A. No. T08-0098 (June 4, 2010).pdf