Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The defendant contended that the “Rights” cards in general, and its mention of the right to a confidential phone call, created an impression that he had the right to the advice of counsel before deciding whether to submit to a chemical test. The Court held that the language of the “Rights” cards is easily reconciled with the rule in Dunn v. Petit, 388 A.2d 809 (1978) that there is no right to counsel at the moment of the decision as to whether or not to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.