on appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U.S. 350, 360 n. 5, 114 S.Ct. 1599, 128 L.Ed.2d 319 (1994) (“Finding no exceptional circumstances that would warrant reviewing a claim that was waived below, we adhere to our general practice and decline to address respondent’s Fourth Amendment argument.”); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 487, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958) (finding, where the government defended the legality of the petitioner’s arrest “by relying entirely on the validity of the warrant,” to allow the government to argue for the first time before the Supreme Court that even a warrantless arrest would have been valid “would unfairly deprive petitioner of an adequate opportunity to respond”); United States v. Nee, 261 F.3d 79, 86 (1st Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. 22249 Dolorosa St., 167 F.3d
holding by failing to raise it to the district court the government waived its argument the subjective intent of the officers was irrelevant for establishing probable cause holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief holding that a defendant waived an argument under section 2  610b by failing to raise it in the trial court holding that as long as officers possess a valid warrant the subjective intent of officers is irrelevant holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court