Any person arrested under the provisions of this chapter shall be afforded, as soon
after being detained as practicable, not to exceed one hour from the time of detention,
the opportunity to make use of a telephone for the purpose of securing an attorney
or arranging for bail; provided, that whenever a person who has been detained for
an alleged violation of the law relating to drunk driving must be immediately transported
to a medical facility for treatment, he or she shall be afforded the use of a telephone
as soon as practicable, which may exceed one hour from the time of detention. The
telephone calls afforded by this section shall be carried out in such a manner as
to provide confidentiality between the arrestee and the recipient of the call.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1999–2015 · leading case:
State v. Carcieri, 730 A.2d 11 (R.I. 1999).
State v. Carcieri, 730 A.2d 11 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 24× “The case comes before us pursuant to a certified question relative to the interpretation of G.L.1956 § 12-7-20, which provides that an arrestee must be afforded an opportunity to make a confidential telephone call as soon as practical after his arrest.”
State v. Brown, 898 A.2d 69 (R.I. 2006).
· cites it 6× “1999), we were presented with the question of whether G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20, which affords an arrested person the right to a confidential telephone call, is violated when a police officer fails to inform an arrestee of his or her right to a confidential telephone call.”
State v. Veltri, 764 A.2d 163 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 10× “There, we stated that, under G.L.1956 § 12-7-20, a suspect is entitled to a free confidential telephone call to contact an attorney or to arrange for bail.”
State v. Joseph Armour, 110 A.3d 1195 (R.I. 2015).
· cites it 3× “G.L. § 12-7-20.” General Laws 1956 § 12-7-20 provides that a person who is arrested “shall be afforded, as soon after being detained as practicable, * * * the opportunity to make use of a telephone for the purpose of securing an attorney * * Here, defendant testified that, after…”
State v. Quattrucci, 39 A.3d 1036 (R.I. 2012).
· cites it 33× “Quattrucci had not been afforded a confidential telephone call, as required by G.L.1956 § 12-7-20. The state appealed, and the Traffic Tribunal appeals panel (appeals panel) upheld the magistrate’s order dismissing the refusal charge.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.