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 Court held that the right to a confidential phone call does not apply to those charged with a civil violation, and refusing to submit to a chemical test is a civil violation.  However, the Court held that even if the defendant had a right to a confidential phone call there was substantial evidence that the defendant was given ample opportunity to make a phone call.  The fact that the detective left out the word “confidential” did not prejudice the defendant, because there was no evidence that if the defendant had been told the phone call was confidential he would have acted any differently.  Thus, the Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision that compliance with § 12-7-20 was supported by substantial evidence.