2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-5-2008 

# U SA v . Ro se P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-5199

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Ros e " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 604. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/604P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 5199

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. LAR KEN RO SE,

A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 05- cr - 00101- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M
. B ay l s on

A r gued Sept ember 27, 2007 B efor e: A M B R O , J O R D A N and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t5, 2008 )2 Pet erG ol dber ger , E s qui r e ( A r gued) P am ela A

. W il k , E sq u ir e 50 R i t t enhous e Pl ace A r dm or e, PA 19003- 2276 C ouns el forA ppel l ant Pat r i ck L. M eeha n U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney R ober tA
. Z auzmer A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney C h ief o f A p p e a ls Fl oy d J

. M i l l er A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney Pet erD
. H ar dy( A r gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T hi s cas e r ai s es a pr ocedur al i s s ue thathas nagged ourT h e g ra n d ju rya lso c h a rg e d R o s e ’ s w if e , T e ss a D a v id 1 R o se . S h e sto o d trial se p a ra tely a n d is n o t a p a rty to th is a p p e a l. 3 C our t for deca des and for w hi ch w e have unw i t t i ngl yg iven c o n f lictin g a n sw e rs: w h e th e r a c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t w h o f

a iled to r ai s e a r eas on t o s uppr es s evi dence befor e t he D i s t r i ctC our tm ay r ai s e the r eas on on appea l

. W e conc l ude that he ca nnotabs ent good caus e: s uch a s uppr es s i on i s s ue i s w ai ved underFeder al R u le o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 1 2 , w h ich tru m p s R u le 5 2 (b )’s p lain e rro r sta n d a rd in th e c o n tex t o f m o tio n s to su p p re ss . F o r th is r eas on and other s , w e af fi r m t he convi ct i on of L ar ken R os e for fi ve co un t s of fail ure t o fil e personal i nco m e t ax returns. I . Backg r ound R o se f ail ed to fil e fe d era l inc o m e tax re turn s fo r t ax y ea rs 1998 t hr ough 2002, des pi t e havi ng r eceiv ed compens at i on dur i ng t hos e y ear s fors er vi ces r el at i ng t o hi s m edi cal t r ans cr i pt i on bus i nes s . I n February2005 a gr and j ur ychar ged R os e w i t h w i ll fu l f

ai l ur e t o fi l e t ax r etur ns i n vi ol at i on of 26 U
. S. C
. § 7203. 1
B efor e the D i s t r i ct C our t , R os e, pr ocee di ng pro se , m o v e d to su p p re ss p h y sic a l ev id e n c e se ize d in a se a rc h o f h is hom e. H e advance d four ar gum ent s . Fi r s t , he ar gued the s ear ch w as “nei t her r eas onabl e nor nece s s ary beca us e all per t i nent i nfor m at ion w as al r eadyi n t he governm ent ’ s pos s es s i on” and beca us e the af

fi davi ton w hi ch the s ear ch w as bas ed “di d notTh e Di s t r i c tCour t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S
. C. 2 § 3 2 3 1
. W e e x e r c i s e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s di c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1291. 4 even su g

g e st th e e x is te n c e o f a n y a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e .” ( E m phas i s i n or i gi nal

. ) Second, R os e cont ended the w arr ant w as “s o over l ybr oad as t o m ake i ti ndist i ngui s habl e fr om t he ‘g e n e ra l w a rra n ts’ p ro h ib ited b y th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t,” as it s ought “ t o s e i z e n u me r o u s i t e ms whi c h c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y be re late d to a n yc rim e , as w e ll as m a n yitem s th a t co n stitu te ar t i cl es of pr ot ect ed s peec h [ i

. e. , i t ems cont ai ni ng ant i

- t ax expr es s i on]
. ” Thi r d, he cl ai m ed t hat t he sea r ch w as m ot i vat ed bya “desi re t o ret al i at e against ” him for “exerci si ng [his ] Fi rs t A m endment r i ght s . ” H e concl u d ed bys t at i ng t hat“[t ] he gove rn m ent ’ s s ei zur e of va r i ous ar t i cl es of pr ot ect ed s peec h w as u n q u e s tio n a b ly co n tr a ry to e s ta b lis h e d la w .” I n M ay2005, t he D i s t r i ctC ou rthel d a s uppr es s i on hear i ng and deni ed the mot i on t o s uppr es s . A fi ve- dayj ur yt r i al f o llo w e d , res u lti n g in c o n v ictio n o n a ll fiv e c o u n ts n o tw ith sta n d in g R o se ’s d e f e n se th a t h e b e liev e d in g o o d f a ith that 2 6 U
. S
. C
. § 8 6 1 ren d ere d h is i n co m e n o n taxa b le. In N ovember 2005, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a se nt ence of 15 m ont hs ’ i m p ri s onm ent , one y ear ’ s s uper vi s ed r el eas e, and a $10, 000 fi ne. R os e t i m el yappea l ed. 2
H e c h a llen g e s b e f

o re u s th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m ot i on t o s uppr es s , ar gui ng t hatthe w arr antvi ol at ed theR o se a lso a r g u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied h im a f a ir 3 t r i a l a n d t h a tt h e p r o s e c u t o rc o m m i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . We have co ns i der ed thes e ar gum ent s , and conc l ude thatt heyl ack su f f icie n t m e rit to r e q u ire o u r a d d re ss in g th e m in d e p th . A s to t he fa i rt r i al ar gum en t, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thats ubm i s s i on t o t he ju ryo f a lleg e d lyin f

lam m a to rye -m a il ev id e n c e w a s n o t p lain erro r o r an ab u se of

d iscreti o n , that the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n excl udi ng document ary , vi deot ape, and t es t i m oni al evi dence t hat R ose soug ht t o int roduce , and t hat the C ou rtdid not abuse i t s di s cr et i on i n i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yas t o ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed S ta tes v . B e ll , 414 F. 3d 474 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( r ej ect i ng t ax- evas i ve ar gum en tbas ed on 26 U

. S. C
. § 861)

. A s t o pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , beca us e R os e di d notobj ectbefor e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt, w e re v iew f

o r p lain e rro r, an d th e p ro se c u to r’s c o m m e n ts fal l w el l s hor tof “e gr egi ous err orora mani fes tm i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 76 F. 3d 526, 530 ( 3d C i r . 1996) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 5 p arti cu lari tyreq u ir em en t of the F o u rt h A m en d m en t. In su p p o rt of t hi s theory , R os e r eas ons t hat( a) t he w arr antw as defe ct i ve on i t s fac e forfai l i ng ei t hert o i dent i fyt he i t ems per m it ted t o be s ear ched f

orand s ei zed ort o i ncorpor at e expr es s l ya document t hatdi d s o, and also tha tt he l i s tof s ei zabl e i t ems di d not acc om panyt he w arran t; and ( b) beca us e the w arr antdi d not r efe rt o part i cul aroffe ns es ( s peci fi cal l y , i tdi d noti ndi cat e for w hi ch of the off

ens es l i s t ed i n t he af

fi davi tt he magi s t r at e found pr obabl e ca us e) , i tauthor i zed a gener al s ear ch i n vi ol at i on of t he F i rs tand F ou rth A m end m ents
. 36 I I . R os e ’ s Suppr e s s i on Argument s A r e W ai ve d A l l of t he s uppr es s i on i s s ues t hatR ose rai s es on appea l a re n ew ; h e did no t raise th em b ef o re th e D istri ct C o u rt . W e di s agr ee w i th t he cont ent i on t hatR os e r ai s ed bef or e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt th e a rg u m e n t th a t th e w a rra n t, b e c a u se it d id n o t in d ica te f o r w h ich o f

th e o f f e n se s liste d in th e a f

f id a v it th e m a g istra te found pr obable caus e, author i zed a gener al s ear ch i n vi ol at i on o f th e F irst a n d F o u rth A m e n d m e n ts. R o se d id n o t ar g u e th is to t hatC our t
. I ns t ead, he ar gued thatt he w arran t per m i t t ed a se a rc h f o r va rio u s ite m s o f

e v id e n c e th a t co u ld n o t b e re late d to anycr i m e, t hatw er e pr ot ect ed by t he Fi r s tA m endment , and that cont ai ned i nfor m at i on of w h i ch the G overnm entw as al r eady aw ar e. O nl ynow does R os e foc us on t he r el at i ons hi p betw een t he w arr antand the af

fi davi t ’ s l i s tof off

ens es , aski ng w hether the f o rm er sp ec ifi ca ll yref

ers to a n yp art of

the latt er. I n o u r Co u r t , s u p p r e s s i o n i s s u e s r a i s e d f o rt h e f i r s tt i me on appea l ar e w ai ved abs entgood caus e underR ul e of Cri m i nal P ro c e d u re 1 2
. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . L o c k e tt , 406 F. 3d 207, 212 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez - Hi dal go , 993 F. 2d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 7

– 5 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ); U ni t ed St at es v. V

elas quez , 885 F .2 d 1 0 7 6 , 1 0 8 4 n .6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr ank , 864 F. 2d 992, 1006 ( 3d C i r . 1988)

. A l t hough a few of ouropi ni ons have i nadvert ent l yappl i ed pl ai n erro rr evi ew underR ul e of C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re 5 2 (b ), s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Loy , 191 F. 3d 3 6 0 , 3 6 9 n .6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); U ni t ed St at es v. R i ddi ck , 156 F. 3d 5 0 5 , 5 0 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez - Zayas , 857F o r a h e l p f u l r e v i e w o f

t h e R u l e s ’ p r e - 1 9 9 7 t e x ta n d h i s t o r y, 4 s ee U n itedS ta tes v . C h a v e z-V a len c ia , 116 F. 3d 127, 130–31 (5th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). 7 F
. 2 d 1 2 2 , 1 3 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) , f o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, we do notfi nd t hes e cas es t o be contr ol l i ng. Fur t her , t he C r i m i nal R ul es ’ t ext , the i rhi s t or y , and pert i nentpol i cycons i der at i ons di r ecta w ai verappr oach. T hus , a suppr es s i on i s s ue not r ai s ed i n t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ti s wa i v e d a b s e n tg o o d c a u s e , a n d we a c c o r d i n g l ya f

f i r m. A . T he R ul es ’ T ext and H i s t ory 4
T h e tex t o f

R u le 5 2 (b ) h a s re m a in e d su b st a n ti a lly u n c h a n g e d s in c e th e in itia l v e rs io n o f th e C ri m in a l R u le s . See F ed. R
. C ri m . P
. 52 a d v isorycom m i t t ee’s no t es; U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 1 (1 9 9 3 ). F o llo w in g a sty listic c h a n g e in 2 0 0 2 , s ee Fed. R
. C r i m . P
. 5 2 advi s or ycomm i t t ee not e t o 2002 amendm ent , t he curr entver s i on pr ovi des t hat“[a ] pl ai n err ort hataff

ect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s m ay be consi der ed eve n th o u g h it w a s n o t b ro u g h t to th e c o u rt ’s a tte n tio n .” R u le 1 2 , b yc o n tra st, sta tes th a t w h e r e a m o tio n to s uppr es s evi dence i s conce r ned, t he mot i on “mustbe r ai s ed befor e tr i al

. ” Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 12( b) ( 3) ( C )

. S ec t i on ( c) of t he R ul e perm i t s t he di s t r i ct cour t t o “s eta dea dl i ne fort he part i es to m a k e ” su c h a m o tio n , an d se c tio n (e ) p ro v id e s th a t a “ p a rty w aives anyR ule 12(b)( 3) [w hich i ncludes m oti on s t o sup press ]8 def ens e, obj ect i on, orr eques tnotr ai s ed byt he dea dl i ne the cour ts et s ” ( emphasi s added) , t hough “[f ] orgoo d caus e, t he cour tm aygr antr el i ef f

r om t he w ai ver . ” R ul e 1 2 ’s hi s t or yi s cons i der abl ym or e compl ex than R ul e 52(b) ’ s . Suppr es s i on m ot i ons w er e pr evi ous l ycover ed by R ul e 41( e) , w hi ch pr ovi ded that“[a ] per s on aggri eved byan u n law f u l se a rc h a n d se izu re m a ym o v e th e d istric t co u rt . . . to s uppr es s [unl aw ful l yobt ai ned evi denc e], ” and that“[t ] he m o tio n sh a ll b e m a d e b e f o re trial o r h e a rin g u n les s o p p o rtu n ity t her efor di d notexi s tort he def endantw as notaw ar e of the gr ounds fort he mot i on, butt he cour t in i t s di s cr et i on m ay ent er t ai n t he mot i on att he tr ial orhear i ng. ” Though C r i m i nal P rocedu re R ule 41(e) att he o uts etrequi red a defen dan t t o rai se s uppr es s i on m ot i ons befor e tr i al orhear i ng ab sent caus e or per m i s s i on fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t , i tdi d nots peci fyt he cons equenc es s houl d t he def endant fai l t o do s o. T he cons equenc e, w e pr es um e, w oul d have be en for fei tur e, not w ai ver ; w her eas t he i nt ent i onal r el i nqui s hm entorabandonment o f a k n o w n ri g h t i s typ icall ya w aive r, an u n inten tio n a l f ail u re t o as s er t t i m el ya r i ghti s a for fei tur e thatr es ul t s i n pl ai n err or re v ie w . See O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . at 7 3 3

– 3 4 ; C h a v ez-V a len c ia , 116 F. 3d at130. W hen the pr ovi s i ons governi n g su p p ression i s s ues m oved t o R ul es 41( f) and 12 i n 1972, t hey ar guabl yno l ongerr equi r ed th a t m o tio n s to s u p p re s s b e ra is e d b e f o re tr ia l. See C h a v ezV a len c ia , 1 1 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 . R u le 4 1 (f ) re a d th a t “[ a ] m o tio n to9 s u ppr es s evi dence m aybe made i n t he courtof t he di s t r i ctof t r i al as pr ovi ded i n R ul e 12. ” R ul e 12, i n tur n, s t at ed that“[a ] ny defe ns e or obj ect i on w hi ch i s capa bl e of det erm i nat i on w i t hout t he tr i al of the gene r al i s s ue m ay be r ai s ed befor e the tr i al by m ot i on. ” Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 12( b) ( 1) ( emphasi s added)

. A l t hough s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 2) of R ul e 12 l i s t ed s om e defe ns es and obj ect i ons th a t “ m ust ” b e ra is e d b e f o re tr ia l o r e l s e b e “ w a iv e [ d ],” s uppr es s i on m ot i ons w er e notamong t hem. O nl ydefe ns es and obj ect i ons bas ed on “de fec t s i n t he i ns t i tut i on of t he pr os ecut i on ori n t he i ndi ct m entori nfor m at i on” w er e l i s t ed i n t hat s ubs ect i on. A ll o f th is c h an g ed in 1 9 7 4 , w h en the R u les w ere amended ex pl i ci t l yt o requir e
— t hi s t i m e w i t h t hr eatof w a iv e r— th a t m o tio n s to su p p re ss b e ra ise d p rio r t o trial. R u le 12 (b) w as am end ed to sta t e t hat “[m ]ot i on s t o sup press evi dence ” “ m u st be r ai s ed pr i ort o t r i al ” (e m phas i s added) , and s ect i on ( f) of t he amended R ul e expl i ci t l ys t at ed that [f] ai l ur e bya par t yt o r ai s e def ens es orobj ect i ons o r to m a k e re q u e sts w h ich m u st b e m a d e p rio r to trial, a t th e tim e s e t b yth e c o u rt p u rsu a n t to s ubdi vi s i on ( c) , orpr i ort o anyext ens i on the r eof m ade byt he court , s hal l cons t i tut e w ai vert her eof, butt he court fo rcaus e s how n m aygr antr el i ef fro m the w aive r. T h e a d v iso ryc o m m itt e e n o tes to th e 1 9 7 4 a m e n d m e n t to R u le10 12 confi r m ed that“[s ] u b d ivisi on ( b) i s change d t o pr ovi de for s om e addi t i onal m ot i ons and re ques t s w hi ch mustbe made pr i or t o t r i al , ” and spe ci fi cal l y t hat “[s ] ubdi vi s i on ( b) ( 3) m akes cl ear th a t o b jec tio n s to e v id e n c e o n th e g ro u n d th a t itw a s illeg a lly obt ai ned mustb e rai s ed pr i ort o t r i al

. ” Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 12 a d v iso ryc o m m itt e e ’s n o te to 1 9 7 4 a m e n d m e n t. Subse quentm i norchange s not w i t hs t andi ng, t he 1974 a m e n d m e n ts re su lted in th e tre a tm e n t o f su p p re ss io n m o tio n s in R ul e 12 thatexi s t s t oday

. T he w ai verpr ovi s i on o f sec ti o n ( f) w as m oved t o s ect i on ( e) i n 2002, and i t s t extw as r evi s ed, but in m a k in g th e c h a n g e “ th e [ A d v iso ry ] C o m m itt e e in ten d [ e d ] to m ake no c hange i n t he

. . . l aw r egar di ng w ai ver s of m ot i ons or d e f e n se s.” F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 2 a d v iso ryc o m m itt e e ’s n o te to 20 02 am end m ents
. B. O ur C our t ’ s D e c i s i ons O ur C our t has neverexpl i ci t l yacknow l edged the t ens i on betw een Rul e 12’ s w ai ver pr ovi s i on and R ul e 52( b) ’ s pl ai n err or pr ovi s i on w her e s up p ression i s s ues r ai s ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on appea l ar e conc erned. I n one l i ne of c as es w e have appl i ed w ai ver and in a n o th e r w e hav e app l i ed p l ai n err or, y etno case in e ith e r lin e re f

e rs to a n y c a se in th e o th e r lin e d u rin g its d isc u ss io n o f

th e su p p re ss io n iss u e , n o r t o th e R u le th a t ar g u a b ly pr es ent s a di ffe r ents t andar d. Our wai v e r c a s e s b e g an w i t h Fr ank , w her e w e i nvokedIn an other po rt i on of i t s b ri ef, t he G ov ernm ent did sugg est 5 th e is s u e w a s w a iv e d

. B ri e f f o r t h e A p p e lle e , supra , at18, 1993 W L 13121408, at*18. N ei t her par t yi n L o c k e tt ra ise d in its b rie f

in g th e p o ss ib ili ty 6 of pl ai n err orr evi ew . T he G overnm entar gued thatt he 11 R ul e 12( b) ( 3) t o hol d t hatt he def endantw aive d hi s ar gum ent th a t, in tera lia , the w a rra n t d id n o t is s u e in c o m p lian c e w ith Feder al R ule o f C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 41( a) beca us e he di d not ra ise th e iss u e to th e d istric t c o u rt. 8 6 4 F .2 d a t 1 0 0 6 . T h e n , in V elas quezw e h e ld th a t b e c a u se th e d e f e n d a n t d id n o t ra ise to t he di s t r i ctcou r therar gum entt hatherconfe s s i on w as i nvol unt ary , w e “d[ i d] notr eac h t he confe s s i on i s s ue. ” 885 F. 2d at108 4 n. 6. A nd i n M ar t i nez - Hi dal

go , w her e the def

endant n e v e r f iled a m o tio n to su p p re ss in th e d istric t co u rt, w e h e ld t hathe “w ai ved” h i s ar gum entof unr eas onabl e s ei zur e on appeal , 993 F. 2d at1057–58 ( ci t i ng Fr ank , 8 6 4 F
. 2 d at 10 0 6 ), even though t he G overnm ents uggest ed thatw e r evi ew t he a rg u m e n t f

o r p la in e rr o r, s ee B ri e f f o r t h e A p p e lle e , M

art i nezHi dal go , 9 9 3 F
. 2 d 1 0 5 2 ( N o . 9 2

- 7 5 7 4 ) , 1993 WL13121408 (un n u m b ere d p ag e a t beg inn ing ). 5
W e m o s tf

u l l ye x p l a i n e d t h e p r o p r i e t yo f a wai ver a p p ro a c h in L o c ke tt , 4 0 6 F. 3 d a t 2 1 2
. W e h e l d t h a t t he defe ndantw ai ved hi s ar gum ent o n ap p eal t hathi s cons entt o a cert ai n s ear ch w as l i m i t ed, as t hatar gum entbefor e t he di s t r i ct c o u rt a d d re s s e d a d if

f e re n t is s u e . I

d. I n doi ng s o, w e not ed that 6defe ndanthad notr ai sed the i s s ue bef or e the di s t r i ctcour tand t her efor e w ai ved i t , B r i ef for A ppel l ee U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca a t 1 5 , 2 7

– 3 0 , L o c ke tt , 4 0 6 F
. 3 d 2 0 7 ( N o . 0 4

- 2 2 4 4 ) , 2 0 0 4 WL 5040478, at*15, 27–30, w hi l e the defe ndantcont ended thathe had r ai s ed the i s s ue bef or e the di s t r i ctcour t , R epl y B ri ef f or A p p e lla n t a t 2

– 7 , L o c k e tt , 406 F. 3 d 207 ( N o. 04- 2244) , 2002 W L 33969221, at*2–7. 12 “[i ] ti s w el l s et t l ed that ar gum ent s as s er t ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on appeal ar e dee m ed t o be w ai ved and c ons equent l yar e not s us cept i bl e t o r evi ew i n t hi s C our tabs entexce pt i onal ci r cumst an ce s . ” Id

. W e r eas oned that“Feder al R ul e of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 3) r equi r es a def endant to fi l e a s uppr es s i on m ot i on pr i ort o t r i al , and R ul e 12( f) pr ovi des t hat fai l ur e t o do s o cons t i tut es a w ai ver . ” Id

. It f o llo w e d f

ro m th is R ule, w e reas on ed, t hat, “i n the con t ext of a m oti on t o sup press , a def endantm us t have advanc ed s ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame t heor i es o f su p p re ss io n in th e d istric t co u rt a s h e o r sh e s e e k s to re ly u p o n i n t h i s Co u r t ”

— i n o t h e rwo r d s , a “ ‘ l i t i g a n tc a n n o tj u mp f ro m th e o ryto th e o rylik e a b e e b u z z in g f ro m f lo w e r to fl ow er . ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng U ni t ed S tate s v. Torr es , 162 F. 3d 6, 11 (1stC i r . 1998) )

. T hus w e conc l uded thatt he def endant’ s l i m i t ed- cons entar gum entw as w ai ved

. I d. B ycontr as t , w e have occa s i onal l y ap pl i ed pl ai n err or re v iew to su p p re ss io n iss u e s ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. I n none of t hes e cas es , how ever , di d a part ys ugges ti n br i efi ng t hatw e hol d the i s s ues t o be w ai ved. I n M ar t i nez - Zayas , we13 cons i der ed a de fenda nt ’ s cl ai m , r ai s ed for the firs tt i m e on a p p e a l, th a t a w a rra n t iss u e d b y a n o n law y e r a n d n o n ju d g e b a il comm i s s i onerw as i nval i d underFed era l R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 41( a)

. 857 F. 2d at 133–34. T hough t he G overnm ent cons ent ed t o pl enaryr evi ew ( m ent i oni ng nei t herpl ai n err or re v ie w n o r R u le 1 2 ’ s w a iv e r p ro v is io n ), s ee R epl yB r i ef f or A p p e lla n t a n d B ri e f f

o r C ro s s -A p p e lle e a t 8 , 2 8

– 3 3 , M art i nezZayas , 857 F. 2d 122 ( N os . 87- 1749, 87- 1756) , w e r evi ew ed for pl ai n err or , fi ndi ng none, 857 F. 2d at134, 137. W e appl i ed pl ai n err orr evi ew agai n i n R i ddi ck , t h i s t i me to a d e f e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n t, raise d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l, th a t th e w a rra n t c o n tain e d sta le f a c ts an d th a t it fa iled to list w ith par t i cul ar i t yt he i t ems t o be sei zed. 156 F. 3d at509 ( ci t i ng Fed. R . C rim . P . 5 2 (b )). T h e G o v e rn m e n t h a d a sk e d a t m o st f o r p lain e rr o r r e v ie w , m a k in g n o m e n t i o n o f w a iv e r o r R u le 1 2
. See B ri e f f o r A p p e lle e /C ro s s -A p p e lla n t a t 3 , 4 7 , R i ddi ck , 156 F. 3d 505 ( N os . 97- 1367, 97- 1433) , 1997 W L 33558258, at*3, 47. Fi n a l l y , ci t i ng R i ddi ck , M art i nez-Zay as and U

ni t ed States v. B ey , 736 F. 2d 891, 895 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( appl y i ng pl ai n err or r e v i e w t o a n u n p r e s e r v e d o b j e c t i o n t o j u r y i n s t ru c t i o n s ) , we appl i ed pl ai n err ori n Loy t o a def endant ’ s ar gum entt hatt he w arr antfai l ed t o des cr i be t he i t ems t o be s ei zed w i th s uffi ci ent par t i cul ar i t y , w her e the def endanthad notr ai s ed the i s s ue i n t he d i s t r ic t c o u rt
. Loy , 191 F. 3d at369 & n. 6. A s i n R i ddi ck , t he G overnm enthad ar gued onl y for pl ai n err orr evi ew , m ent i oni ng nei t hert he conc eptof w ai vernorR ul e 12. B r i ef f ort he U ni t edA s di s cus s ed pre vi ous l y , t he cont ent s of cur r entR ul e 12( e) 7 w er e cont ai ned i n R ul e 12( f) pr i ort o 2002. 14 S ta te s a t 2 , 3 1

– 3 5 , Loy , 1 9 1 F
. 3 d 3 6 0 (N o . 9 8 -36 3 6 ). C . O t her Juri s di ct i ons’ A pproaches In o th e r co u rts, “ th e p re v a ili n g ru le is th a t th e f a ilu re to as s er t a par t i cul ar gr ound [for s uppr es s i on] oper at es as a w ai ver of t he r i ghtt o chal l enge the admi s s i bi l i t yof t he evi dence on t hat g ro u n d .” 6 W a yn e R . L a F a v e , Sea rch an d S eizure: A T reat ise on the Fourth A m endm ent § 1 1 .2 ( a ) (4 th e d . 2 0 0 4 ); see al so C h a v e z - V

a len c ia , 1 1 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 (n o tin g th a t m o st c o u rts a d h e r e t o t h e w a i v e ra p p r o a c h )

. B u tc o u r t s h a v e n o ta l w a ys a p p lied th is ru le c o n sis ten tly . S o m e c o u rts h a v e b e e n w ill in g to rev iew su p p ression claim s fo r p lai n erro r d esp it e a d ef en d an t’ s noncompl i ance w i t h R ul e 12. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. B uchanon , for in sta n c e , the S ix th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls ch a ra c ter ize d R u le 12( f) as a mer e “f

or fei tur e” pr ovi s i on des pi t e the R ul e’ s us e of 7 t he t er m “w aive r, ” and thus hel d t hata s uppr es s i on ar gum ent for fei t ed underR ul e 12( f) cou ld b e r evi ew ed forpl ai n err or u n d e r R u le 5 2 (b ). 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 7 (6 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). B uts ee U ni t ed St at es v. V

i ncent , 20 F. 3d 229, 234 ( 6t h C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng t hat defe ndant w as pr ecl uded fr om r ai s i ng s uppr es s i on iss u e f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l). S im ilarly , the E lev e n th C i r cui tC our ti n U

nit ed S t ates v. Mi l i an -Ro drigu ez concl uded t hatt he def

endant ’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e t i m el y ( w i t houtgood caus e) a s uppr es s i on ar gum ent w as a w ai verunderR ul e 12( f) , butt hen15 w enton t o r evi ew t he arg um entforpl ai n err or . 828 F. 2d 679, 6 8 3

– 8 4 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). B ut s ee U nit ed S t ates v. Ford , 34 F. 3d 9 9 2 , 9 9 4 & n . 2 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ) (cit ing F ed

. R
. C ri m . P
. 1 2 (f)) (refu sing to h e a r sup p ression claim s n o t r aised in d ef en d an t’ s p re tr ia l m o tio n ). O t hercour t s , by contr as t , have depende d fort hei rans w er on w hethert he r ecor d i s s uffi ci ent l ydevel oped t o per m i tan a c c u r a t e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e i s s u e o n a p p e a l

. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez

- Lopez , t he Fi r s tC i r cui tC our t r efus ed t o appl ypl ai n err or rev iew to a n arg u m en t th at w as w aive d u n d er R u le 12 , in p art b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt re c o rd w a s “ in s u f f ic ie n tly d e v e lo p e d ,” d u e to th e d e f

e n d a n t’s “ o w n f

a ilu re to ra ise th e iss u e , to p e rm it r el i abl e appe l l at e r evi ew . ” 282 F. 3d 1, 10 ( 1s t C i r . 2002)

. T he C our tw enton t o not e as an “open” i s s ue i n i t s C i r cui tw hether a n a p p e llate c o u rt c a n re v iew f o r pla in e rro r w h e re th e re c o rd is s u f f ic ie n tly d e v e lo p e d

. Id

. at 10 n. 4. Si m i l ar l y , i n U ni t ed Stat es v. H aw ki ns , 249 F. 3d 867, 871–72 ( 9t h C i r . 2001) , al t hough t he N i nt h C i r cui tC our tnot ed that “fa i l ur e t o r ai s e a pa r t i cul ar gr ound i n s uppor tof a moti on t o s uppr es s cons t i tut es a w ai ver o f that ch all en g e,” it“re co g n ized an ex ce p ti o n to this rule w h ere t he i s s ue notr ai s ed i n t he tr i al cour td o es n o taff ectorr el yon th e f a c tu a l r e c o rd d e v e lo p e d b yth e p a rt ie s .” Ot h e rc o u r t s h a v e g o n e f u r t h e r , h o l d i n g u n t i me l yc l a i ms underR ul e 12 w er e co m p le t el ybarr ed abs entgood caus e, w ith o u t ap p a re n t re lian c e o n w h e th e r th e re c o rd w a s s u f f icie n tly d e v e l o p e d

. I n U

n itedS ta tes v . So b in , f o ri n s t a n c e , t h e D. C.16 C i r cui tC our thel d t hat the d ef endantw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o s eek s uppr es s i on byw ai t i ng ( w i t houtcaus e) unt i l aft ert he di s t ri ct c o u r t ’ s mo t i on d e a d l i n e t o a s s e r ti t
. 5 6 F
. 3 d 1 4 2 3 , 1 4 2 7 ( D. C. C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); see al

so U nit ed S t ates v. Hew l ett , 3 9 5 F
. 3d 458, 460–6 1 ( D. C. Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t s u p p r e s s i o n i s s u e not ra is e d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s w a iv e d u n d e r R u le 1 2 ). Si m i l ar l y , i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. N

eum ann o u r E ig h th C irc u it c o l l e a g u e s r e fus ed t o cons i dera cha l l enge t o a s ear ch w arr ant t hatw as notr ai s ed t o t he di s t r i ctcour t
. 8 87 F. 2d 880, 885–86 (8th C ir

. 1 9 8 9 ) ( en banc ) ( ci t i ng Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 12)

. T he T en th C ir cu itC o u rtli k ew ise ref u sed to co n side r a d ef

en d an t’ s s uppr es s i on ar gum entt hathi s det ent i on and the s ear ch of hi s car w er e uncons t i tut i onal beca us e he r ai s ed the ar gum en t f ort he f i rs t tim e o n a p p e a l. U ni t ed Stat es v. D i r den , 3 8 F. 3 d 1 1 31, 1 1 3 9 n . 1 0 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ) (cit ing F ed

. R
. C ri m . P
. 1 2 (b)(3 ), (f ))

. B u t se e U

n itedS ta tes v . D e w itt , 9 4 6 F .2 d 1 4 9 7 , 1 5 0 2 (1 0 th C i r . 1991) ( hol di ng t hats uppr essio n i s s ue w as w ai ved under R ul e 12, butt hen not i ng t hatt he C our t di d “not fi nd pl ai n err or i n t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s admi s s i on of t he evi dence ”)

. T he Second Ci r c u i t Cou r t f

o l l o wed t h e wai v e r r o u t e i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Y ous ef , w her e i tfound “c om pl et e w ai verof a s upp ressi on ar gum ent t hat w as m ade i n an unt i m el y fas hi on” t o be w i t hout c a u s e . 3 2 7 F .3 d 5 6 , 1 2 5 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In a p a rt ic u la rl y d e ta ile d tr e a tm e n t o f th is is s u e , C ha vezV al enci a i n t he Fi ft h C i r cui tj oi ned tho se cour t s empl oy i ng a w aive r ap p roa ch

. 1 1 6 F
. 3 d at 1 2 9

– 3 3
. A fter p rov iding a h ist o ry of t h e Rul e s ’ t e x t s i mi l a r t o t h e o n e we p r o v i d e d a b o v e , t he17 C o u rt n o ted th a t

u n d er the cu rren t R u le 1 2 , m o ti o n s to su p p ress a re now g i ven i dent i cal t r eatm entas m ot i ons bas ed on defe ct s i n t he i ns t i tut i on of t he pr os ecut i on and mo t i o n s b a s e d o n d e f

e c t s i n t h e i n d i c t me n t
. As not ed above , t hes e tw o cl ai m s hi s t or i cal l yhave been f or ecl os ed on appeal i f not fi r s tr ai s ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour t
. I tt her efore seem s t o us t hatt he in ten t o f th e d ra f ter s to g iv e th e ter m “ w a iv e r” its o rd in a rym e a n in g a s it a p p lie s to m o tio n s to su p p ress is [c lear]. Id

. at131. A f ter re c o n c ili n g th is t e x tu a l re a d in g w ith F if th C ir c u it p re c e d e n t, C h a v e z-V a len c ia ex am i ned var i ous pol i cy cons i der at ion s tha ts uppor ta w ai verappr oach. I tnot ed that b ec au se th e e x clus ion aryrule is “n o t dev ised so m u c h [ a s] a p e rso n a l rig h t o f

th e d e f e n d a n t, bu t, in ste a d , as a n in c e n tiv e to pr ot ect t he publ i c agai ns t an over - aggr es s i ve pol i ce f or ce, ” the Supr eme C our thas “r efused t o appl yt he exc l us i onaryrul e for F o u rth A m e n d m e n t v io latio n s w h e re th e c o sts o f its i m pl ement at i on out w ei gh[] t he bene fi tgai ned bydet err ence of futur e vi ol at i ons . ” Id

. ( ci t i ng Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Leon , 468 U. S. 897 ( 1984) )

. I tt her efor e exa m i ned t h e cost s and bene fi t s of al l ow i ng a cr i m i nal defe ndantt o r ai s e a s uppr es s i on i s su e on appea l not w i t hs t andi ng noncompl i ance w i t h R ul e 12. I n doi ng18 s o, i tnot ed that“al l ow ing appel l at e r evi ew of s uppr es s i on cl ai m s notr ai s ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour ti nfl i ct s a s i gni fi cantcos ton t he cr i m i nal j us t i ce pr oces s . ” Id

. at131–32. Speci fi cal l y , i f t he G o v e rn m e n t h a s n o re a so n to b e liev e th e d e f e n d a n t w ill se e k to s uppress ce r t ai n evi dence , i tm ays ee no ne ed t o pr oduce the q u a lity o r q u a n tity o f e v id e n c e o th e rw is e n e e d e d to p re v a il. I d. a t 1 3 2 . F u rth e r, th e G o v e rn m e n t w ill b e f o rc e d o n a p p e a l to re ly on an under devel oped r ecor d i n defe ndi ng i t s el f fr om t he s u p p re s s io n a rg u m e n t. Id

. A nd al l ow i ng a def endantt o r ai s e a s uppr es s i on m ot i on aft erj eopar dyhas at t ache d ( i

. e. , aft ert he j ur yhas been s w or n) r obs t he G overnm ent of i t s abi l i t yt o appea l a n a d v e rs e ru lin g o n t h e s u p p re s s io n is s u e . I d. ; s ee al

s o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3731. C h a v ez-V

a len c ia found li t t l e bene fi tt o al l ow i ng a d e f e n d a n t to ra ise a n u n tim e lysu p p re ss io n iss u e o n a p p e a l. Speci fi cal l y , t hi s w oul d notdet erm uch ( i f any ) pol i ce m i s conduct

. I tnot ed that , t o fi nd an ef fec ton pol i ce m i s conduct , “‘ w e w oul d have t o i m agi ne a pol i ceman t empt ed t o m ake a n uncons t i tut i onal s ear ch ors ei zur e paus i ng t o t hi nk and then bei ng di s s uad ed byt he cons i der at i on t hatt he pr os pe c t i v e d e f

e n d a n t , i f

h e i s s o u n l u c k ya s t o h a v e a l a w y er w ho comm i t s pl ai n err ori n fai l i ng t o fi l e a t i m el ypr etr i al su p p ression m o ti o n , w il l h av e an o ther bit e at the a p p le.’” C h a v ez-V

a len c ia , 116 F. 3d at132 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Br o wn , 6 6 3 F
. 2 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 8 (D

. C
. C ir

. 1 9 8 1 ) ( en banc ) ( W ile y , J ., c o n c u rrin g )). T h u s th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t, i n a d d iti o n to R u le 12’ s t extand hi s t or yas w el l as per t i nent case l aw , pol i cy19 cons i der at i ons couns el ed i n favorof a w ai verappr oach. D . A n a ly sis W e a g re e w ith C h a v e z-V a len c ia t hatunderR ul e 12 a su p p re ss io n a rg u m e n t r a ise d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l is w ai ved ( i

. e. , co m p lete lyb a rre d ) a b se n t g o o d c a u se . A s in L o c ke tt , our hol di ng appl i es notonl yw her e the def endantfai l ed t o fil e a su p p ressi on m oti on atal l i n the di stri ctcou rt , bu tal so w her e he f

i l ed one butdi d noti ncl ude the i s s ues raised on a p p e a l. See 406 F. 3d at212 ( s t at i ng t hat“i n t he cont extof a m ot i on t o s uppr es s , a def endantm us thave a dvance d s ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame t heor i es o f s uppr es s i on i n t he di s t r i ct cou rtas he or she seeks t o rel yup on i n this C o urt ”). B ecause R os e fa i l ed w i t houtgo o d ca u s e t o r ai s e thes e s uppr es s i on a r g u me n t s t o t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , we d o n o tc o n s i d e rt h e m.

1 . R u le 1 2 , n o t R u le 5 2 (b ), C o n tr o ls T h o u g h ea ch o f R u le 5 2 (b) an d R u le 1 2 a p p ea rs a p p l i c a b l e wh e n r e a d a l o n e , wh e n c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e rwe b e liev e R u le 1 2 ’s w a iv e r p ro v is io n m u s t p re v a il. T h e latte r is m uch m or e spec i fi c t han i s R ul e 52(b) ; w hi l e R ul e 52(b) s t at es gener al l yt hat “[a ] pl ai n err or t hataff ect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s m ay b e c o n side red ev en tho u g h itw a s n o t b rou g h t t o the c o u rt ’s at t ent i on, ” R ul e 12( e) s i n g le s outm ot i ons t o s uppr es s , s t at i ng t h a ta “ p a r t y w aives any[s uppr es s i on] defe ns e, obj ec ti on, or re q u e s t n o t r a is e d b yth e [ p re t r i a l ] d e a d lin e th e c o u rt s e ts .”20 ( E m phas i s added. ) I n this c o nt ext , “w e appl yt he w el l

- s et t l ed m ax im that sp ec ifi c statuto ryp ro v isi o n s p rev ail o v er m o re gener al pr ovi s i ons . ” C havar r i a v. G onz al ez , 446 F. 3d 508, 517 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )

. T h u s we a v o id “ a p p ly in g a g e n e ra l p ro v isio n w h e n d o in g so w o u ld u n d e rm in e lim ita tio n s c re a t e d b ya m o re s p e c if ic p ro v is io n .” Va r i t y Co r p . v . Ho we , 5 1 6 U .S . 4 8 9 , 5 1 1 (1 9 9 6 ). R o se c o u n ter s th a t R u le 1 2 ’s u se o f th e ter m “ w a iv e s” is ar guabl yatodds w i t h t he S u p reme C our t ’ s defi ni t i on of

“ wai v e r ” i n O l ano
— t he “i nt ent i onal r el i nqui s hm entor abandonmentof a r i ght

. ” O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . at 7 3 3 . P e r th is arg u m en t, fa il u re to c o m p lyw ith R u le 12 co u ld b e see n as m o re a k in to a f

o rf e itu re

— a n in a d v e rte n t “ f a ilu re to m a k e th e tim e ly as s er t i on of a r igh t”— thatw oul d r es ul ti n pl ai n err orr evi ew ra th e r t h a n a w a iv e r. Id

. R ul e 12’ s hi s t or y , how ever , i ndi cat es t hati t s t extm eans w hati ts ay s . A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, i n 1974 t he R ul es w er e cha nged to req ui r e— w i t h an expl i ci tt hr eatof w a iv e r— th a t m o tio n s to su p p re ss b e ra ise d p rio r to trial in acc or dance w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s des i r ed t i m et abl e. I n 2002, w ell af ter O l ano , t he w ai ver pr ovi s i on of s ect i on ( f) w as m oved to se cti o n (e) an d it s tex t w as re v ise d , b u t th e A d v isory C o m m itte e k e p t th e te rm “ w a iv e r” in p la c e . See F e d

. R. Cr i m. P. 12 advi s or ycomm i t t ee’ s not e t o 2002 amendm ent s . H ad the d r a f t e r s t h o u g h tt h a tt e r m ou t d a t e d i n l i g h to f O l ano orot her pr ece dent , t hey coul d have c hanged the t er m t o “for fei tur e, ” but th e yd id n o t.T ho ug h w e off er this rat i on al e, w e t hink i tun w i se t o ex cuse 8 a d ef en d an t f rom co m p li an ce w ith R u le 12 ev en w h ere the c o u rt of ap peals t hinks t he record i s suf fi ci entl ydev el op ed. T o d o so w oul d i gnor e the s peci fi c l anguage of R ul e 12, s om ethi ng w e do notcons i derour s el ves atl i ber t yt o do. 21 M o re o v e r, w e jo in th e F if th C irc u it’s c o n c lu sio n in C h a v ez-V

a len c ia t hatpol i cycons i der at i ons s upp o rta w ai ver a p p ro a c h

. See 1 1 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 1

– 3 2 . A llo w in g a d e f e n d a n t to r ai s e a s uppr es s i on i s s ue for t he fi r s t t i m e on appeal abs entgood caus e ca r r i es s ubs t ant i al co st s t hatar e notout w ei ghed byany at t end an t b enefi t s . I f a de fenda nthas notr ai s ed a s uppr es s i on i s s ue bef

or e the di s t r i ctcour t , t he G ov ern m en t( underan as s um p ti on t hati t s pr offe r ed evi dence w as admi s s i bl e) m ay p lau sib lyc o n c lu d e d u rin g trial th a t itd o e s n o t n e e d to a c c u m u la te a n d in tr o d u c e a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e to p re v a il. Id

. at 132. M o reo v er , on appea l t he G overnm enthas l os ti t s chanc e t o i nt r oduce va l uabl e evi dence i n oppos i t i on t o t he s uppr es s i on m o tio n . See i d. A nd w e agr ee w i t h t he C h a v ez-V a len c ia C o u rt 8 th a t a c h o ice o f

p lain e rro r rev iew o v e r a w a iv e r a p p ro a c h w o u ld do l i tt l e, i f anyt hi ng, t o fur thert he det err enteff ectof t he e x c lu s io n a ry ru le

. S e e id

. at132. T he part i es s pend m uch t i m e di s cus s i ng ourC our t ’ s pr i or cas es , s om e of w h i ch appl i ed pl ai n err orr evi ew and s om e of w hich a pp l i ed w ai ver t o sup press i on i ssues r ai sed fo r the fir st t i m e on appe al

. T hi s i s under s t anda b le. W e do nott hi nk, how ever , t hatany of t hes e cas es contr ol s t he out come w e r eac hT o be fai r , w e re i t er at e t hat , i n another por t i on of i t s br i ef, 9 t he G overnm ents ugges t ed t he i s s ue w as w ai ved. B r i ef f ort he A p p e lle e , supra , at18, 1993 W L 13121408, at*18. 22 to d a y . A s m e n tio n e d a t th e o u tse t o f th is o p in io n , w e a p p e a r to b e th e f irst pa n e l in o u r C irc u it to a n a ly z e a n d re so lv e e x p licitly t he t ens i on betw een Rul e 52( b) and R ul e 12 w her e s uppr es s i on m ot i ons are concer ned, forno cas e i n ei t herl i ne of de ci s i ons m ent i ons a ca s e i n t he ot her l i ne ( ort he ar guabl ycontr aryrul e) dur i ng i t s di s cus s i on of t he s uppr es s i on i s s ue. T o th e e x ten t th e re is a n yin d ic a tio n th a t w e sile n tly cons i der ed ( butdi d notexpli cit lydi s cus s ) t he t ens i on w hen deci di ng t hes e pr i orcas es , t hati ndi cat i on i s t hatw e r es ol ved the t ens i on in favor of w ai ver . I n M ar t i nez - Hi dal

go t he G overnm ents t at ed i n i t s br i ef that“[a ] s t he [s uppr es s i on] i s s ue w a s n o t r a is e d b e lo w , th e s ta n d a rd o f re v i e w i s p la in e rr o r,” B ri e f f o r th e A p p e lle e , M

ar t i nez - Hi dal

go , 993 F. 2d 1052 ( N o. 92- 7574), 1 9 93 W L 13121408 ( unnum ber ed page at begi nni ng) , y et w e w ent furt her and hel d t he i s s u e to be

9 “w ai ved. ” 993 F. 2d at1057–58. A s for t he cas es t hat appl i ed pl ai n err orr evi ew , w e have l i t t l e doubtt hatt hos e appl i cat i ons w er e i nadvert ent
. W e not ed pr evi ous l yt hati n none of t he cas es appl y i ng pl ai n err orr evi ew di d a part yr ai s e the pos sibi l i t yof w ai veri n i t s br i ef. T hatour C our tdi d notuncoverR ul e 12 i t s el f i s und ers t andabl e, gi ven t hatR ul e 52( b) s eems appl i cabl e on i t s fac e and does notr efe rW e a re u n p e rsu a d e d b yR o se ’s a rg u m e n t th a t b e c a u se R u le 10 12 excus es w ai v er w h er e the def endants how s “ca us e”— a f a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n th a t a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls is ill-su ited to m a k e

— th e G o v e rn m e n t sh o u ld n o t b e p e rm itt e d to in v o k e R u le 1 2 ’s w a iv e r p ro v is io n o n a p p e a l. See R os e’ s R epl yB r . 12–13 n. 11. T hatar gum enthas no for ce her e, as R os e has pr es ent ed no 23 t he r eade rt o any ot her por t i on of t he C r i m i nal R ul es . B uti n our v i e w i two u l d b e i mp ru d e n tt o c o mp o u n d t h e e r r o r , a n d we decl i ne t o do s o. F o r a ll o f

th e se re a so n s, w e h o ld th a t R u le 1 2 , n o t R u le 52 (b) , go verns m oti on s t o s up press evidence r ai sed fort he fir st t i m e on appea l

. A s s uch, t hos e i s s ues ar e w ai ved abse n t good caus e. 2. R ose H as N ot Sh ow n G oo d C au se H av in g c o n c lu d e d th a t R o s e ’s s u p p re s s io n a rg u m e n ts a re unt i m el y under R ul e 12, w e t ur n t o w hetherhe has demonst r at ed

“ g o o d ca u se” fo r d elay ing h is arg u m en ts u n ti l ap p ea l. W e bel i eve he has n o t. W her e a de fenda ntar gues “ca us e” f ort he fi rs tt i m e on app eal , and t he proper dis po si t i on i s n ot cl ear t o u s, w e c o u ld re m a n d th e c a s e f o r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . See U nit ed St ates v. W

e a thers , 1 8 6 F
. 3 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 8

– 5 9 (D

. C
. C ir

. 1999) ( r emandi ng cas e forhear i ng on w hetherineffe ct i ve assistan ce o f co u n sel w as c au se f o r reli ef fro m the d ef

en d an t’ s w ai verund er R u l e 12)

. W e s ee no ne ed forr emand her e, 10col or abl e cl ai m of “c aus e” thatm er i t s fur t herfac t
- fi ndi ng. 24 how ever , as R os e has notpr es ent ed anycol or abl e expl anat i on w hyhe fa i l ed t o r ai s e thes e s uppr es s i on i s s ues t o t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt
. C f. U n itedS ta tes v . So to , 1 3 2 F .3 d 5 6 , 5 9 (D

. C
. C ir

. 1997) ( r emand of i neff

ect i v e n e s s c l a i m i s unnece s s aryw her e the pr operr es ul ti s cl ear )

. T h ough R os e has offe r ed a r eas on w hy h e d id n o t r aise the issue s b ef o re h is sup p ression h ea ri n g , R o se’s R eplyB r. 15 (ar gu i ng t hat he “cou l d n ot m ov e t o sup press b e f o re th e h e a rin g o n th e b a sis o f p ro b lem s w ith d o c u m e n ts i dent i fi ed att he hea r i ng”) , he has offe r ed no expl anat i on, ot her t han thathe w as pr ocee di ng pro se , w hyhe di d n o t rai s e the is s u e s a f te r th e h e a ri n g b u t p ri o r to th is a p p e a l, s ee O ral A rg. T r. a t2 9
. I n t h i s c o n t e x t , we c o n c l u d e t h a tRo s e h a s n o ts h o wn
“ g o o d c a u se ” f

o r h is f a ilu re to ra ise th e se su p p re ss io n iss u e s to th e D istric t C o u rt. I I I . C oncl usi on U nder Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 12, a fe der al cr i m i nal defe ndanti s barr ed, abs ent good caus e, fr om r ai s i ng a re a s o n to su p p re ss e v id e n c e f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. T h is c o n c lu s io n f

in d s s u p p o rt in th e C rim in a l R u les ’ te x t, th e ir hi s t or y , ourC our t ’ s cas e l aw , and the pol i cyunder l y i ng R ul e 12. R o se h a s o f

f e re d n o g o o d re a so n w h yh e w a ited u n til a p p e a l to raise the su p p ression issue s, an d ac co rdin g lythe issu es a re w ai ved.