The government’s warrantless search of apartment 101 violated appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights where the government failed to establish the existence of effective consent under an “apparent authority” theory. Apparent authority could not reasonably be inferred from the fact that the individual who gave consent answered the front door and appeared to be alone in the apartment. A reasonable person would not have drawn this conclusion without further inquiry, particularly in light of the fact that the officer knew Mikey lived there, and that the individual who answer the door was not Mikey. Moreover, the consent was not voluntary where the individual was ordered up against the sliding glass door in the spread eagle position, after which he was frisked and handcuffed. Moreover, neither exigent circumstances nor the need for a protective sweep justified the warrantless entry. Judge Wardlaw dissented.