search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664, 751 A.2d 92 (2000) (citing State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 230, 440 A.2d 1311 (1981)). The State has the burden of establishing that a warrantless search falls within one of the recognized exceptions. Ibid. In the present case the State urges that the warrantless search of defendant’s home was valid under the consent-search exception. See Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218, 280, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2075, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 893 (1973). We have interpreted Article I, paragraph 7 of the State Constitution to provide enhanced protections beyond that of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523, 524, 538, 888 A.2d 1266 (2006) (<HOLDING>); State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17, 33, 875
holding that vehicular search incident to arrest for traffic offense is unreasonable under state constitution holding new jersey constitution prohibits search of auto incident to arrest where occupant removed from vehicle and secured elsewhere holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle holding that the vehicle of a recent occupant may be searched incident to arrest as an exception to the warrant requirement where it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest