Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that the defendant’s rights were not substantially prejudiced by the officer’s presence in the room while defendant made his confidential phone call because the prosecution did not use any information obtained by the officer during the defendant’s call. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.