regulations the assurances as to the machine’s reliability are necessarily suspect. {34} Our Supreme Court has agreed “that if an accuracy-ensuring [SLD] regulation is not satisfied, the result of the test in question may be deemed unreliable and excluded.” State v. Dedman, 2004-NMSC-037, ¶ 13, 136 N.M. 561, 102 P.3d 628 (citing Onsurez, 2002-NMCA-082, 132 N.M. 485, 51 P.3d 528 and State v. Gardner, 1998-NMCA-160, 126 N.M. 125, 967 P.2d 465 as examples of regulations going to accuracy). As to what foundational requirements are required to demonstrate compliance with SLD certification regulations, we will not attempt to provide a global answer because that would inevitably lead us to the arena of advisory opinions. See State v. Wyrostek, 117 N.M. 514, 523, 873 P.2d 260, 269 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Our resolution of this case will however
holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court holding the constitutional issue was not preserved and thus declining to issue an advisory opinion holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue