the district court in a manner that would have allowed the court to fully and properly address it. See State v. Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260, 291 (Iowa 2010) (recognizing that an argument not made on an issue before the district court is waived). First, the State made no argument that special governmental needs justified the search.. Thus, we have no opportunity to consider in this appeal whether the State’s maintenance of a parole system presents “special needs[] beyond the normal need for law enforcement, [which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impractical.” See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351, 105 S.Ct. 733, 748, 83 L.Ed.2d 720, 741 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring); see also Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 875, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3169, 97 L.Ed.2d 709, 718 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Second, the State made no argument to the
holding that the amount of alimony should not be reduced to a mathematical formula because the need for flexibility outweighs the need for relative certainty holding that producing party need only make requested documents available for inspection and need not pay for copying costs holding that citys policy need not be unconstitutional per se but need only cause a constitutional violation holding that wisconsins operation of a probation system constitutes a special need beyond the normal need for law enforcement recognizing the need for judicial economy in family issues as well as  the need to avoid fundamental unfairness