context: This court has positively cited Steagaid when addressing situations in which the prosecution failed to raise standing before the trial court.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 946 F.2d 1497, 1499-1500
citation_a.parenthetical: ruling prosecution waived its opportunity to raise standing on appeal when it did not raise issue below at suppression hearing and offered no exeuse for the omission
citation_a.sentence: See People v. McKinstrey, 852 P.2d 467, 470 n. 4 (Colo.1998) (declining to address whether defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy when prosecution did not raise issue on interlocutory appeal); People v. Burola, 848 P.2d 958, 960 n. 2 (Colo.1993) (rejecting invitation to address standing when prosecution lost the right to raise the issue by failing to address it in front of trial court or seeking certiorari on the question); People v. Hearty, 644 P.2d at 311-12. See also United States v. Dewitt, 946 F.2d 1497, 1499-1500 (10th Cir.1991) (ruling prosecution waived its opportunity to raise standing on appeal when it did not raise issue below at suppression hearing and offered no exeuse for the omission).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 652 F.2d 1374, 1382
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding "confusing" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing
citation_b.sentence: But see United States v. Hansen, 652 F.2d 1374, 1382 (10th Cir.1981) (concluding "confusing" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing).