With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 10 . Neither Lindsey nor the State argues that Officer Kruse's actions do not constitute a search. The State's brief states, "Arguably, this was not even a search," Appellee's Br. p. 19, but includes no further discussion on the point. Any such argument is thus waived for failure to present a cogent argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) ("'The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning.") Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035, 1050 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>), reh'g denied, trans. denied. 11 . Article 1,

A: holding that failure to develop a cogent argument waives the issue for appellate review
B: holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument
C: recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review
D: holding that the failure to obtain a ruling on a motion for new trial waives the issues raised for appellate review
A.