Smith v. Tobon, 529 F. App'x 36

Plaintiff Levon Smith sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming multiple Fourth Amendment violations (false arrest, malicious prosecution, unlawful search/seizure) arising from separate incidents in 2002–2003.
Key incidents: June 25, 2002 arrest for an alleged hand-to-hand drug sale; March 19, 2003 arrest for operating a vehicle without a valid license; May 23, 2003 padlocking of Smith’s tire shop after a warrant search.
District court granted defendants’ partial summary judgment and submitted some claims to trial (March 19, 2003); denied Smith’s summary-judgment motion and his Rule 59 motion for a new trial.
On appeal, Smith argued lack of probable cause for the June 25 arrest and subsequent malicious prosecution, that the May 23 padlocking was an unlawful seizure, and that several jury instructions regarding the March 19 claims were erroneous.
Evidence: officers observed a suspected drug transaction; the other participant had substantial cocaine; police found a small amount in Smith’s shop; Smith’s license was suspended; police told Smith the padlock was for security and he could access the shop.
The Second Circuit affirmed: held there was probable cause for the June 25 arrest and prosecution; padlocking did not constitute an actionable seizure by named defendants; jury instructions did not warrant a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for June 25, 2002 arrest (false arrest)	Smith: no probable cause; arrest unjustified.	Officers: observed apparent hand-to-hand sale; other person had substantial cocaine; small amount found in shop — probable cause existed.	Affirmed for defendants — evidence available to officers supported probable cause.
Malicious prosecution from June 25 events	Smith: prosecution was wrongful despite arrest.	Defendants: probable cause at arrest continued; no intervening facts undermined charges.	Affirmed — no post-arrest facts defeated probable cause.
Padlocking of shop May 23, 2003 (unlawful seizure)	Smith: lock created uncertainty about access and constituted a seizure.	Defendants: padlock was for security after search; Smith could enter; named defendants not shown to have placed locks.	Affirmed for defendants — no reasonable juror could find a seizure by the named officers.
Jury instructions re: March 19, 2003 arrest (probable cause, adverse inference, deprivation of liberty for malicious prosecution)	Smith: instructions misstated probable cause, improperly barred inference about uncalled witness, and misstated required liberty deprivation.	Defendants: instructions were adequate or any defects harmless; jury verdict showed probable cause.	Affirmed — no plain or reversible error; any instructional flaws were harmless.

Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (2d Cir.) (summary-judgment review standard)
Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (probable cause defeats false-arrest claim)
Williams v. Town of Greenburgh, 535 F.3d 71 (2d Cir.) (probable cause as complete defense to false arrest)
Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563 (2d Cir.) (probable cause assessed from officer's knowledge at arrest; intervening facts for malicious prosecution)
Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63 (2d Cir.) (probable cause defeats malicious prosecution)
Morales v. Grener, 381 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.) (probable cause standard in arrest cases)
Gordon v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.) (harmless error and jury instruction sufficiency)
Cobb v. Pozzi, 363 F.3d 89 (2d Cir.) (standard for new trial review of jury instructions)
Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved jury instruction claims)
Hathaway v. Coughlin, 99 F.3d 550 (2d Cir.) (adequacy of jury charge)