Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed whether an arrestee's rights under G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20 required a confidential telephone call before a chemical-test refusal charge could be sustained. The court held that the statute applied because the respondent was arrested, but the confidentiality requirement attached only to calls made to secure an attorney or arrange bail. Because the record showed calls to a friend and girlfriend, and no substantial and extreme prejudice, the court quashed the District Court judgment and vacated dismissal of the refusal charge.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20's right to use a telephone for a confidential call applies to a person arrested for DUI who is subsequently charged with the civil offense of refusing to submit to a chemical test.
- Whether the confidentiality requirement of § 12-7-20 applies to telephone calls made for purposes other than securing an attorney or arranging bail.
- Whether the Traffic Tribunal magistrate erred by dismissing the chemical-test refusal charge without evidence that Quattrucci sought an attorney or bail call or suffered substantial and extreme prejudice.
Holdings
- A person arrested for DUI is entitled to the protections of § 12-7-20 even though the subsequent chemical-test refusal charge is civil rather than criminal.
- The confidentiality requirement applies only when the telephone call is made for the purpose of securing an attorney or arranging bail; it does not attach to every telephone call made by an arrestee at a police station.
- Dismissal of the chemical-test refusal charge was unwarranted because the record did not establish a qualifying violation of § 12-7-20 or substantial and extreme prejudice resulting from a lack of confidentiality.
Key quotations
“The confidentiality requirement of § 12-7-20 clearly does not attach to any and every telephone call an arrestee makes while at the police station; rather, it only attaches when the purpose of the call is to speak to an attorney or to arrange for bail.” (1043)
Factual background
Officer Randy Bryant arrested Lewis T. Quattrucci for driving under the influence after observing erratic driving, signs of intoxication, and Quattrucci's failure of two field sobriety tests. At the police station, Bryant read Quattrucci his station rights and permitted him to make telephone calls while Bryant and another officer remained in the room and within hearing distance. The calls were to a friend who was coming to get Quattrucci and to his girlfriend; there was no evidence that Quattrucci called or sought to call an attorney or arrange bail. Quattrucci later refused the requested chemical test.
Procedural history
A Traffic Tribunal magistrate dismissed the refusal charge after finding that Quattrucci had not been afforded a confidential telephone call under G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20. The Traffic Tribunal appeals panel affirmed, and the District Court affirmed the appeals panel. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari, quashed the District Court judgment, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The record was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.