The Town of Barrington 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 a chemical test). Here, the Defendant alleged that his right to be seen immediately by a physician was delayed because although he told the Officer twice that he wanted to be examined the Officer never allowed him to call a physician.  Instead, the Officer simply released the Defendant after his arraignment by a bail commissioner, which took place nearly three hours after his arrest. The Town argued that the “immediate” timeframe mentioned in the refusal statute does not create a strict timeline. The Panel held that even a broad interpretation of “immediately” would not render the trial magistrate’s holding erroneous because the Officer never afforded the Defendant the right to an examination. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to dismiss the violation.