With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was justified by an applicable exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2d 621, 627 (Minn.2001). The commissioner concedes, and we agree, that no exception to the warrant requirement applies here. We, therefore, conclude that the officer’s entry into the garage is unreasonable. Thus, the fruits of the officer’s warrantless entry, including the ensuing interview and the evidence of intoxication, must be suppressed. The commissioner argues for the first time on appeal that, even if the officer entered Haase’s garage in violation of the warrant requirement, the inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule applies. See State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 105 (Minn.1999); see also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Generally, we will not consider matters that

A: holding that suppression of secondary evidence depends on whether the police obtained the evidence through an exploitation of the prior illegality
B: holding that an exception to the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applies where the police would have obtained the evidence if no illegality had occurred
C: recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule
D: holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
B.