USA v. Delpriore

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL ANGELO DELPRIORE,
JR.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:18-cr-00136-SLG
ORDER RE SECOND MOTION TO RECONSIDER
At Docket 331, Defendant Michael Delpriore filed a renewed motion seeking
reconsideration of the Court’s order at Docket 197 that denied his motion to suppress.
With the Court’s permission, the government filed an opposition to the motion at
Docket 337, to which Mr. Delpriore replied at Docket 343.
The Court previously held that “Mr. Delpriore’s missing front license plate
provided probable cause for an arrest.”1 The Court relied on Hamilton v. State, 59 P.
3d 760 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002). 	Mr. Delpriore asserts that the Court erred in this
regard, because Hamilton related to a violation of section (b) of the applicable statute,
Alaska Statute 28.10.171, while Mr. Delpriore is alleged to have violated section (a)
of that statute.2 	He maintains that a violation of section (a) is not an arrestable
1 Docket 197 at 11.
2 But see Roberts v. State, 700 P.2d 815, 817 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985) (holding that former AS
28.35.230(b) (renumbered AS 28.90.010(a)) “is a generic penalty provision, broadly applicable to
Case 3:18-cr-00136-SLG-MMS Document 347 Filed 01/04/23 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:18-cr-00136-SLG-MMS, USA v. Delpriore
Order re Second Motion to Reconsider
Page 2 of 4
offense, and points to a recent amendment of the statute that eliminated the need for
a front license plate for noncommercial vehicles and the legislative history for that
enactment, which indicates that the failure to have a front plate has not resulted in
any arrests, but rather only a few citations or “fix it” tickets. 	Mr. Delpriore urges this
Court to defer to the Alaska Legislature’s and Alaska State Troopers’ interpretation
of the statute. Mr. Delpriore also included with his motion a photograph of his vehicle
taken on August 8, 2018, which depicts a front license plate secured to the inside of
the front windshield.3 	He maintains that this demonstrates there was no probable
cause to arrest him for the lack of the front plate.
The government responds that pursuant to the Alaska law that was in effect at
the time of the stop, the officers had probable cause to arrest him because his vehicle
did not legibly display a front license plate. 	As to the photo from inside the vehicle,
the government maintains this is not newly discovered evidence and, in any event,
the plate was obscured behind the vehicle’s darkly tinted front windshield. 	The
government maintains that the fact that Mr. Delpriore never raised this issue until
after trial “corroborates officer testimony that the license plate was imperceptible to
the officers.”4
violations of all Title 28 provisions” for which another penalty is not specifically provided).
3 Exhibit G, Docket 331-7.
4 Docket 337 at 5.
Case 3:18-cr-00136-SLG-MMS Document 347 Filed 01/04/23 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:18-cr-00136-SLG-MMS, USA v. Delpriore
Order re Second Motion to Reconsider
Page 3 of 4
In his reply, Mr. Delpriore asserts that the legislative history from the recent
statutory 	amendment 	is 	“newly 	discovered 	evidence” 	that 	refutes 	this 	Court’s
conclusion that a violation of Alaska Statute 28.10.171(a) is an arrestable offense.
Citing to Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813-19 (1996), the
Hamilton court stated,
the Supreme Court rejected the doctrine of the “pretext” traffic stop
and held instead that, no matter what may have prompted police
officers' interest in a vehicle or its occupants, a traffic stop is legal so
long as the officers had probable cause to believe that a violation of
the traffic code (or any other violation of the law) had occurred in their
presence.5
Here, the officers had probable cause to believe that Mr. Delpriore was violating the
then-existing license plate law, and that violation was occurring in their presence.
The Fourth Amendment accordingly did not preclude their arrest of Mr. Delpriore.6
The fact that it appears there actually was a front license plate taped inside to the
dark windshield does not negate Officer Proegler’s reasonable belief that there was
no front license plate, based on what he saw as he approached the vehicle, as
probable cause does not require certainty or absolute correctness.7
5 Hamilton, 59 F.3d at 765. 	See also State v. Clayton, 584 P.2d 1111 (Alaska 1978) (holding that
prosecution for a traffic infraction is a quasi-criminal proceeding to which certain criminal procedures,
including the issuance of bench warrants for the arrest of traffic violators, are applicable).
6 See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) (“If an officer has probable cause to
believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may,
without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.”).
7 See United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000).
Case 3:18-cr-00136-SLG-MMS Document 347 Filed 01/04/23 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:18-cr-00136-SLG-MMS, USA v. Delpriore
Order re Second Motion to Reconsider
Page 4 of 4
For the foregoing reasons, the second motion to reconsider at Docket 331 is
DENIED.
DATED this 4th day of January, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:18-cr-00136-SLG-MMS Document 347 Filed 01/04/23 Page 4 of 4