484, 771 A.2d 1220 (2001). Under our State Constitution, we have heightened requirements to ensure that the waiver of the right to refuse a consent search is voluntarily and knowingly exercised. In State v. Johnson, we held that under Article I, Paragraph 7, if “the State seeks to justify a search on the basis of consent it has the burden of showing that the consent was voluntary, an essential element of which is knowledge of the right to refuse consent.” 68 N.J. 349, 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (1975). Indeed, New Jersey is one of a small minority of jurisdictions in the country requiring the State to prove, as a precondition to the validity of a consent search, that a person have knowledge of his right to refuse to give consent. See State v. Brown, 356 Ark. 460, 156 S.W.3d 722, 724 (2004) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ferrier, 136 Wash.2d 103, 960 P.2d
holding that persons knowledge of his right to refuse a consent to search is a factor but not a necessary prerequisite to demonstrating a voluntary consent holding under state constitution that validity of consent search requires knowledge of right to refuse consent holding that police must prior to entering the home inform the person from whom consent is sought that he or she may lawfully refuse to consent to the search holding that a home dweller must be advised of his or her right to refuse consent in order to validate a consensual search under the arkansas constitution holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search