continued control over the vehicle, their reasonable concern that one or more occupants could have been armed, and the uncertain status of the vehicle’s owner, it may have been inevitable that the handgun would have been discovered as officers engaged in consti tutional law enforcement practices. Consequently, the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule is potentially relevant to this case. The inevitable discovery exception derives from the principle that “the deterrent purposes of the exclusionary rule are not served by excluding evidence that, but for the misconduct, the police inevitably would have discovered.” State v. Sugar, 100 N.J. 214, 237, 495 A.2d 90 (1985); see also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 442-44, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2508-09, 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 386-87 (1984) (<HOLDING>). In Sugar, supra, this Court acknowledged that
recognizing exception recognizing inevitable discovery exception under fourth amendment holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law recognizing an implied fourth amendment action for damages recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule