agreed at the motion hearing that the emergency aid exception, after Fessenden, extended to animals, and defendant did not make any argument to the- contrary. As noted, defendant’s argument before the trial court was that the state had failed to satisfy the requirements of the exception. That did not preserve an argument that the case he had acknowledged as providing the relevant analysis was wrongly decided. See State v. Lockridge, 282 Or App 414, 419, 386 P3d 96 (2016) (argument not preserved when “neither the state nor the trial court had any reason to believe that [the] defendant was” making that argument, “the state had no opportunity” to respond to it, “and the trial court had no reason to rule on that issue”); see also State v. Reyes-Camarena, 330 Or 431, 440, 7 P3d 522 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Defendant also renews on appeal his argument
holding that the appellant waived this argument holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object holding that the appellant failed to preserve a claim of error that was based on an argument that precedent was wrongly decided where in the trial court the appellant had conceded that the precedent was controlling holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court