Telephone Call

The state appealed the decision of the trial magistrate dismissing the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The majority held that the term “confidentiality” in § 12-7-20 is clear and unambiguous on its face and does not require legislative interpretation. Further, the Court held that § 12-7-20 is also applicable in civil cases. However, since this case is civil in nature, the appropriate remedy for not affording the defendant with a confidential phone call was dismissal of the charge. Here, the arresting officer was in earshot of a defendant’s phone conversation in a room with constant audio and video surveillance. Thus, the call was not confidential. The defendant’s verbal waiver of his right to confidentiality was inconsequential because it was the duty of the officer to provide confidentiality. Since a confidential call was not provided to the defendant, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing the charge against the defendant.
Goulart M., dissenting: The magistrate believes that the Court should follow State v. Carcieri, 730 A.2d 11 (R.I. 1999), which states that the mere presence of an officer during a phone call does not violate §12-7-20. Unless there is substantial prejudice, dismissal of the charge is an excessive remedy. However, where a defendant can establish that the phone call was to an attorney, there should be a presumption of prejudice and the burden should shift to the prosecution to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was not prejudiced.Town of Warren v. Lewis Quatrucci, C.A. No. T08-0057 (September 17, 2008).pdf