With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not needed, and the district court agreed. As a result, the question of individualized suspicion was not fully developed before the district court, nor was Child given a full and fair opportunity to respond to the effect his prior misconduct might have on the individualized suspicion inquiry. See Meiboom v. Watson, 2000-NMSC-004, ¶ 20, 128 N.M. 536, 994 P.2d 1154 (providing that our Supreme Court will not affirm a district court ruling on a ground not relied upon by the district court if reliance on the new ground would be unfair to appellant, and as part of this, the Court “on appeal ... will not assume the role of the trial court and delve into ... fact-dependent inquiries” (omissions in original) (alteration omitted)); State v. Wilson, 1998-NMCA-084, ¶ 17, 125 N.M. 390, 962 P.2d 636 (<HOLDING>). {23} We . 578, 136 P.3d 579 (recognizing that

A: holding that appellate court in affirming trial courts decision may rely in part on a ground not presented to trial court
B: recognizing that unfairness precludes an appellate court from affirming on a factdependent ground not determined below
C: recognizing general rule that failure to raise nonjurisdietional issues below precludes appellate consideration of such issues
D: holding that our supreme court will not affirm on a factdependant ground not determined below
B.