Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision constituted reversible error of law because the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the police department offered the Defendant an opportunity to make a confidential phone call.  The Panel noted that the Defendant had been read his rights for use at the scene and at the station.  The Panel noted that after being read his rights (which included informing the Defendant he had a right to a phone call), the Defendant declined to make a phone call.  Additionally, the Panel noted that the Police then offered the Defendant another opportunity to make a phone call, which the Defendant refused.  The Panel explained that the statute does not require the police to use the word “confidential” when informing a suspect about his or her right to make a phone call.  Rather, the Police are simply required to provide a degree of confidence to the suspect when a phone call is made.  The Panel held that the Police did in fact offer the Defendant an opportunity to make a phone call.  However, the Panel dismissed the charge due to the lack of a sworn report.