there, which, coupled with a valid arrest warrant, would make the search of the premises valid. In other words, all along, the premise underpinning the Government’s defense of the search was that Lucas’s standing to challenge a warrantless search (which was accepted by the Government) was irrelevant because officers possessed a valid arrest warrant and possessed a reasonable belief he was at the premises searched. At oral argument before the panel in this case, the Government conceded it had never before argued Lucas lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy due to his escapee status: Judge Beam: As an escapee from custody, was a warrant necessary? Government: Well, your honor, at this point in time that is, that’s an issue and— Judge Beam: It, well, it wasn’t h Cir.1996) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). As Judge Beam explains in his dissent, in
holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument holding that the appellant waived this argument holding that government lost right to raise lack of expectation of privacy argument on appeal when it failed to raise argument below 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 holding the government waived its standing argument when it was put on notice the defendant would claim a privacy interest