under Ind. Code § 31-33-3-1. See Deasy-Leas v. Leas, 693 N.E.2d 90, 97 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. 3 . In her brief. Mother has supported her argument with traditional Fourth Amendment analysis. Although she makes a passing reference to the Indiana Constitution, she has not set forth separate argument or authority that the search was violative of Article I, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Thus, Mother has waived any argument that she is entitled to relief on state constitutional grounds. See Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 430 n. 1 (Ind.1993). 4 . In her reply brief, Mother argues that the order/warrant was defective because it may not have been supported by an affidavit as required by Ind.Code § 35-33-5-2(a). See Holtel v. State, 155 Ind.App. 1, 290 N.E.2d 775, 779 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Even if it were established that no affidavit
holding that a search warrant is invalid if not based on an affidavit holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that falsification of information in a search warrant affidavit was a matter of public concern holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit holding that observations made a during prior illegal search should not have been included in the affidavit for the search warrant