After police arrested Dustin Lee on a terroristic-threats warrant outside his shared residence, a co-occupant told officers that a rifle was inside and consented to their entry. Officers saw the rifle in plain view and seized it. Lee, charged with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, moved to suppress the weapon, arguing that the entry and seizure were unauthorized and that officers should have given him an opportunity to object while he was detained in a patrol car. The trial court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The court distinguished a prior case involving a present occupant who was not informed of a co-tenant’s consent. Here, the officers came to arrest Lee on a separate charge, and the record did not show that they removed him to defeat an objection. The co-occupant’s consent authorized entry into the common area, and the rifle’s immediate visibility made the seizure a plain-view seizure rather than a search. Officers therefore had no affirmative duty to locate Lee and solicit an objection before relying on the consent already given.