CA10: Merely citing the 4A without explanation didn’t preserve the argument made on appeal

Plaintiff’s sole search claim that officers “in so doing unjustifiably trespassed on his Fourth Amendment right to privacy” did not put the district court on notice of his specific claim now asserted on appeal. United States v. Murillo-Gonzalez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20456 (10th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024):

But these statements never alerted the district court to the issue Defendant asserts on appeal: that an administrative warrant did not provide officers with the authority necessary to stop Defendant’s truck. Instead, as the record clearly reflects, Defendant made these statements to support his arguments that (1) Defendant’s seizure fell outside the scope of Torres—Mena’s arrest in violation of Terry v. Ohio, …, and (2) officers used Torres—Mena’s arrest as pretext to stop Defendant and immediately ask him about his immigration status. At no point in his motion to suppress or reply brief before the district court did Defendant argue that DHS officers lacked authority to stop the vehicle based on the extra-judicial warrant. We will not indulge in Defendant’s request to use cherry-picked, general, and conclusory statements to support preservation, especially when Defendant made such statements to support different arguments. See, e.g., United States v. Isabella, 918 F.3d 816, 845 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Collins v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., 754 Fed. App’x. 714, 718 (10th Cir. 2018)) (discussing that a “too general and conclusory” argument does not warrant review).