862.225.1965
On March 31, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, decided State of New Jersey v. Franck A. Amang, 481 N.J. Super 355 (App. Div. 2025), which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Appellate Court upheld convictions related to child endangerment and weapons possession but reversed the simple assault convictions due to improper jury instructions. Significantly, the Appellate Court issued a novel ruling in New Jersey consent search law, holding that when a person in custody invokes the right to counsel, police may not seek consent to search the person’s home unless that request is first honored—a decision that expands constitutional protections under the state constitution beyond federal standards.
Facts and Procedural History Behind the Consent Search in New Jersey
In February 2021, defendant Franck Amang assaulted two of his three daughters for using a phone late at night and having a social media account, against his rules, prompting one of the girls to contact the police. Upon responding, officers observed one of the girls had visible injuries. Amang initially consented to a limited search of his home, resulting in the seizure of two belts allegedly used in the assault. He was then taken into custody and advised of his Miranda rights, at which point he invoked his right to counsel, and the interview ceased.
Hours later, upon learning that there were weapons in the house, police re-approached Amang, who was still in custody, and obtained his consent to search his home again. Amang did not re-assert a request to speak with an attorney before signing the consent. The second search yielded multiple firearms and large-capacity magazines, which led to several weapons charges. This interaction formed the crux of the New Jersey consent search law debate in this case.
Appellate Division Evaluates the New Jersey Consent Search Law After Miranda Invocation
Defendant Amang was indicted on 24 counts, including aggravated assault, child endangerment, and numerous weapons charges. Amang moved to suppress the evidence recovered during the second consent search, asserting that it violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and New Jersey consent search law. The trial court denied the motion, ruling the search valid under the inevitable discovery doctrine. A jury convicted Amang on multiple charges, and he was sentenced to 14 years in prison.
Revisiting the Right to Counsel and Search Consent in Police Custody
In a detailed opinion by Judge Susswein, the Appellate Division addressed whether the second search violated Amang’s constitutional rights–an issue of first impression regarding the interplay between the right against self-incrimination, the right to privacy in one’s home and effects, and the right to the assistance of counsel. The Appellate Court held that viewed through the lens of the heightened protections accorded to suspects in custody under the New Jersey Constitution, the police were precluded from asking Amang to grant consent to search while he remained in their custody following his unambiguous assertion of the right to confer with an attorney during the Miranda waiver colloquy. The Appellate Division established a simple rule providing clear guidance to police, that is: “when a person in custody asks to speak with an attorney, police should not thereafter request the arrestee to consent to a search when there has been no break in custody.”
The Role of the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine in Weapons Convictions
Despite ruling the second search unconstitutional, the Appellate Court affirmed Amang’s weapons convictions. It agreed with the trial court’s finding, under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, that the firearms and ammunition would have inevitably been discovered through a pending application for a Final Extreme Risk Protection Order (FERPO). State v. Sugar (Sugar II), 100 N.J. 214, 238 (1985). This outcome highlights the nuanced application of the inevitable discovery exception even within the framework of New Jersey consent search law.
Jury Instruction Errors on Simple Assault and Parental Discipline
The Appellate Court also addressed defendant Amang’s argument the trial court should have instructed the jury regarding a parent’s right to use corporal punishment in response to the jury’s question on the simple assault charges. During deliberations, the jury inquired about a parent’s legal right to use corporal punishment. In response, the trial judge simply reread the simple assault instruction it had previously given to the jury. The Appellate Division found that the trial court failed to adequately respond to the question and that this failure likely confused the jury and undermined the verdict’s integrity. As a result, it reversed the simple assault convictions and ordered a new trial on those charges.
Endangerment Convictions and Jury Instructions Upheld
The Appellate Division also rejected Amang’s argument that the jury was improperly instructed on child endangerment charges. It found the instructions legally sound and supported by evidence. The decision reaffirmed that Amang’s conduct exceeded any permissible disciplinary action and constituted criminal behavior. Although not directly connected to New Jersey consent search law, this portion reinforces how critical correct jury instructions are in serious criminal trials.
The Appellate Division’s Broader View on Constitutional Rights in New Jersey Consent Search Law
The Appellate Division emphasized that New Jersey’s constitution provides greater protections than federal law. It rejected the notion that constitutional rights—like the right against self-incrimination, the right to counsel, and the right against unreasonable searches—should be treated in isolation. Instead, the Appellate Division described these rights as “an intricately-woven tapestry—one that comprehensively protects persons who are facing an ongoing criminal investigation, and especially those who find themselves in the inherently coercive environment of police custody.” The ruling setting significantly impacts how New Jersey consent search law should be applied when multiple constitutional protections are simultaneously in play.
Conclusion: What This Decision Means for New Jersey Consent Search Law
This opinion establishes a critical precedent: in New Jersey, once a suspect invokes their right to counsel, law enforcement cannot request consent to search unless the suspect has consulted an attorney or been released from custody. The ruling enhances New Jersey’s already robust constitutional protections and provides clear guidance to police, ensuring suspects’ rights are not undermined through indirect means. For criminal defense attorneys and individuals under investigation, this development is a pivotal shift in how consent searches are approached and litigated in the Garden State.
Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-225-1965.
No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
New Jersey Consent Search Law: Appellate Ruling in State v. Amang
