Telephone Call

The State appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to dismiss the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The State argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the presence of the Officer and Sergeant in the room had a “chilling” effect on the Defendant’s right to a confidential phone call. The Panel held that the right to a confidential phone call attaches in civil chemical test refusal cases and that the arrested person must be given the opportunity to make a call out of police earshot within one hour of arrest. Here, the Officer testified that he asked the Defendant whether he wanted to make a confidential phone call and the Defendant responded that he “didn’t care.” The Panel held that while the Defendant had the right to waive his or her right to make a phone call, once the Defendant decided to make a phone call, the Officer had an affirmative obligation to ensure that the call was confidential. Accordingly, because the Officer did not afford the Defendant with an opportunity to make a confidential phone call, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to dismiss the charged violation.

Magistrate Goulart filed a dissenting opinion, noting his view that dismissal would be warranted only upon proof that a telephone call was placed to an attorney and that an attorney-client communication occurred.

Town of Warren v. Lewis Quattrucci, C.A. T08-0057 (September 17, 2008).pdf