Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that she was not given a reasonable opportunity to make a confidential phone call within one hour of her arrest by the Officer, in compliance with R.I.G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20, because the Officer testified that he was able to hear the phone call through the door. Here, the Officer testified that the Defendant refused to make the phone call in the interview room and instead preferred to make the call from in the booking room. The Officer further testified that the booking room was not under audible surveillance and he was not physically present in the room at the time of the call. Since the Officer made clear he had no recollection of the Defendant’s conversation and did not include any details of the conversation in the report, the Panel found that the integrity of the confidential conversation was not compromised. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.