This appeal raises a question of first impression under New Jersey law, requiring the court to consider 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. Following defendant's arrest for assaulting his daughters, police administered Miranda warnings and defendant asserted his right to confer with an attorney. The interrogation process immediately ceased. Police went back to the still detained defendant a few hours later and asked him to consent to a search of his home, which he granted. Defendant contends that police did not scrupulously honor his earlier request to consult with an attorney, rendering his consent invalid. The court surveyed cases in other jurisdictions and analyzed different options for how to account for defendant's request to confer with an attorney: (1) treat the prior request as a factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances test used to determine whether consent was given voluntarily; (2) require police when asking for consent to clarify whether a prior request to confer with counsel pertained only to the right against self-incrimination and not to the waiver of other constitutional rights; or (3) treat the prior request to confer with an attorney as a per se bar from asking for consent. After considering the heightened protections accorded to suspects in custody under the New Jersey Constitution and common law, New Jersey's history and tradition of honoring the protective role that defense attorneys play, and the stricter rules in this State for proving the validity of a consent search, the court establishes a bright-line rule to provide clear guidance to police: when a person in custody asks to speak with an attorney, police may not thereafter ask the arrestee to consent to a search when there has been no break in custody. Doing so renders the consent presumptively involuntary. In this case, the trial judge found that the State met its burden of proving the elements of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule by clear and convincing evidence. The court finds no error in the trial judge's application of the inevitable discovery doctrine and affirms defendant's convictions for unlawful possession of the assault firearm and large capacity ammunition magazines police found when executing the consent search. The court also affirms defendant's conviction for endangering the welfare of a child, rejecting defendant's contention the trial judge erred in instructing the jury by failing to sua sponte redact language in the model jury charge not pertinent to the evidence presented by the prosecutor. The court, however, reverses and remands for a new trial on the downgraded simple assault charges because the judge did not adequately respond to a question posed by the jury concerning a parent's authority to use corporal punishment.