With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of an expectation of privacy while in jail in concluding that the tapes were admissible, we hold that the court misapplied the law. Rather, the district court’s focus should have been on the question of whether Defendant consented to the monitoring of his telephone calls such that the third exception to the coverage of the Abuse of Privacy Act was satisfied. {13} Although the district court did not properly apply the law in deciding whether the tapes were admissible, we review the entire record to determine whether it supports the State’s argument on appeal that Defendant consented to the monitoring and recording of his telephone calls, and therefore the provisions of the Abuse of Privacy Act were not violated. See State v. Martinez, 94 N.M. 436, 439-40, 612 P.2d 228, 231-32 (1980) (<HOLDING>); State v. Beachum, 83 N.M. 526, 527, 494 P.2d

A: holding that similar agreement allowed the defendant to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress
B: holding that appellate court in affirming trial courts decision may rely in part on a ground not presented to trial court
C: holding that an appellate court considers the entire record on appeal not just the evidence presented at the suppression hearing in affirming the denial of a motion to suppress
D: holding that because a specific argument raised on appeal was not presented at suppression hearing  the motion to suppress did not give the trial court notice of the specific issues the defendant  raised in his appellate brief therefore the trial court did not have the opportunity to rectify these alleged errors the defendants motion was not sufficient to preserve the issues presented by him in his brief  quoting aeree v state 673 so2d 855 856 alacrimapp1995
C.