source of ‘individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution.’ ” State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 144-45, 519 A.2d 820 (1987) (quoting PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 2040, 64 L.Ed.2d 741, 752 (1980)). Indeed, we have not hesitated to find that our State Constitution provides our citizens with greater rights to privacy, free speech, and equal protection than those available under the United States Constitution. See, e.g., State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17, 26, 32-33, 875 A.2d 866 (2005) (concluding that New Jersey Constitution recognizes interest in privacy of bank records, unlike Federal Constitution); N.J. Coal. Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326, 332, 349, 374, 650 A.2d 757 (1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 812, 116 S.Ct. 62, 133
holding that free speech protection of new jersey constitution requires subject to reasonable restrictions privatelyowned shopping centers to permit speech on political and societal issues on premises unlike first amendment of federal constitution holding that campaign money laundering was in furtherance of political speech but an invalid exercise of free speech rights because it was illegal holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that the plaintiffs right to political speech is fully in accord with the publics interest in free speech and association recognizing that state constitution imposes more stringent limitations on power of state to inquire into lawful associations and speech than those imposed by federal constitution