Opinion ID: 2301653
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Purpose of the Telephone Call

Text: We next turn to the question of whether the Warren Police Department violated § 12-7-20 by failing to afford Mr. Quattrucci the opportunity to make use of a telephone for the purpose of securing an attorney or arranging for bail. Section 12-7-20. When this Court reviews matters of statutory interpretation, [i]t is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings. State v. Robinson, 972 A.2d 150, 158 (R.I.2009) (quoting Such v. State, 950 A.2d 1150, 1156 (R.I. 2008)). As noted supra, this Court previously has addressed § 12-7-20 as it relates to an arrestee who subsequently is charged with the criminal offense of a DUI. See State v. Veltri, 764 A.2d 163 (R.I.2001); State v. Carcieri, 730 A.2d 11 (R.I.1999). Although the case under review arises in the context of a civil violation, we find the reasoning in Carcieri to be persuasive. In Carcieri, 730 A.2d at 15, we said: It is clear that the Legislature, in enacting § 12-7-20, intended that a DUI suspect must be afforded an opportunity to exercise the rights contained therein. Accordingly, we find that § 12-7-20 mandates that a police officer not only provide notice of a suspect's right to a confidential telephone call, but also a reasonable opportunity to speak privately with the recipient of the call, if the call was made for the purpose of securing an attorney or bail. In the instant case, the only evidence adduced during trial concerning the nature of Mr. Quattrucci's telephone calls was Officer Bryant's testimony that Mr. Quattrucci called his friend that was coming to get him and his girlfriend    [who] wouldn't answer. Mr. Quattrucci did not present any evidence to show that the purpose of his telephone calls was to secure or to talk to an attorney. 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. There being no evidence presented that Mr. Quattrucci made, or wished to make, a telephone call for the purpose of securing an attorney, nor any showing that Mr. Quattrucci suffered substantial and extreme prejudice because he did not receive a private telephone call, we conclude that the Traffic Tribunal magistrate committed an error of law in ruling that the Warren police violated Mr. Quattrucci's rights under § 12-7-20.