that the district court expressly found that “Child had previously been searched during the 2008 school year and was found to have a pack of cigarettes.” While we agree that tobacco use and possession could supply the particularized suspicion necessary to support a search, the district court did not state whether the security officer in the present incident was the same security officer that had searched Child previously and found cigarettes, nor did the court make findings regarding whether the security officer recalled that Child had previously been found with tobacco products when he was searched the second time. Further, Child was not put on notice of the importance of or need to inquire into those matters. See generally Meiboom, 2000-NMSC-004, ¶ 20, 128 N.M. 536, 994 P.2d 1154 (<HOLDING>); State v. Williams, 2006-NMCA-062, ¶ 27, 139
holding that as a general rule this court will not consider an issue that was not raised below holding that the supreme court will not address an argument on appeal if a party has failed to obtain a ruling below holding that our supreme court will not affirm on a factdependant ground not determined below recognizing that unfairness precludes an appellate court from affirming on a factdependent ground not determined below recognizing that where a decision is based on more than one ground the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case