to the case and supported by the record, even if it was not a ground presented to, or relied upon, by the trial court. See Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331, 336 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). Under these circumstances, the State’s issue affords no basis for reversal. Accordingly it is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. FOWLER, J., dissenting. 1 . The State may appeal an order in a criminal case granting a motion to suppress evidence. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (Vernon Supp.2005). 2 . Because it has not been raised by the State, we do not address whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule even applies to a community supervision revocation proceeding. See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole y. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363-64, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)(<HOLDING>); Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 771-72,
holding that due process requires exclusionary rule to be applied in state trials holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to knockandannounce violations