THE TIME THAT SEARCH TOOK PLACE, ANY REASONABLE NOTION OF “EXIGENCY’ HAD LONG SINCE PASSED, AND THERE WAS PLENTY OF TIME TO GET A WARRANT, TELEPHONIC OR OTHERWISE. Under the circumstances presented here, the warrantless search of the SUV was unconstitutional. We thus reverse the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motions to suppress. Because our decision vacates the convictions, we will not address the remaining arguments raised by Minitee. As a threshold issue, the State argues that Bland does not have standing to challenge the propriety of the search. Before we address the merits of this argument, we note that the State did not raise this issue before the trial court. This issue may not therefore be properly before us. See State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307, 327, 877 A.2d 1183 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Anticipating this problem, the State cites
recognizing appellate courts discretion to consider issues raised in the district court but not resolved there holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal recognizing the general rule that an appellate court will not address matters that were not raised or decided in the trial court   holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal recognizing that an appellate court ordinarily will not consider issues that were not raised at trial