as an investigative stop, we ... examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly.” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). Vinton contends that “[ajfter the frisk was complete, the officers continued to detain Vinton for approximately 45 minutes, including 30 minutes until Investigator Hodge arrived on the scene and an additional 15 minutes while the[y] obtained advice from supervisors .... ” Appellant’s Br. 38-39. However, Vinton waived this argument by failing to raise it before the district court. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e) (any defense or objection not raised in a motion to suppress is waived); United States v. Redman, 331 F.3d 982, 986 (D.C.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In any event, within the first few minutes of
holding that party waived argument by failing to brief it on appeal holding that appellant waived argument by failing to raise argument before workers compensation board and failing to list or brief issue in administrative appeal to superior court holding that the appellant waived this argument holding appellant waived argument by failing to assert it at suppression hearing holding that appellant by failing to object to commissioners authority before or at the administrative hearing waived any challenge