[brief] This Court is empowered to affirm the decision of the trial judge based solely on [...]’s consent, on the authority discussed in Point I(A).  It is not disputed that [...] was the tenant with control over the apartment searched.  It is indisputable that [...] told police she lived in another state at least three times, told them she planned to return to that state, and did not produce any identification to call her assertions into question.  Her daughter confirmed that [...] was only visiting from Wilmington.  Therefore, [...] should be treated as no more than an overnight guest in her daughter’s apartment.  While an overnight guest may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her host’s home, the host maintains the authority to license others, including law enforcement, into the home, as well.  *Minnesota v. Olson*, 495 U.S. 91, 99 (1990).  “[A] homeowner does not relinquish control over the premises to a third party simply because the third party occasionally resides in the home. ”  *State v. Flowers*, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004); see *State v. Fountain*, 534 N.W.2d 859, 863-64 (S.D. 1995) (holding that overnight guest sharing use and access of premises is subject to host’s consent to search guest’s effects); *State v. Vaster*, 601 P.2d 1292, 1293-95 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979) (holding that since no evidence was presented adult son “exercised exclusive control over any portion of” his mother’s residence, her consent allowed police to arrest defendant in “his” bedroom).  At a minimum, the facts showed [...] and [...] each had control over the bedroom in which the gun was found.  “New Jersey recognizes . . . that there may be dual control over a particular location.  In such a case either party has the authority to grant the right to search at that location. ”  *State* v. Santana, 215 N.J. Super. 63, 69 (App. Div. 1987) (citing cases).  [...] was never under suspicion, and was never detained.  She was an adult who had two years of college.  [...]’s consent would be valid even if [...] was under arrest when [...] gave her consent – a point the State does not concede.  The arrest of another in the presence of the consenting party does not automatically equal coercion of the consenting party.  United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 205-08 (2002) (rejecting argument individual could not validly consent after traveling companion arrested).  No facts even suggest [...] was subjected to any pressure by police.  Just the opposite.  Police asked more than once whether she understood her right to deny them consent to search.  In addition to [...]’s actual authority to give consent to search the bedroom where the gun had been placed, her “apparent authority” also justified the police in acting.  Police “may, depending on the circumstances, rely on the apparent authority of a person consenting to a search. ”  Miranda, 253 N.J. at 476 (internal quotation omitted).  [...] said nothing to indicate she was exerting the right to exclude police from the bedroom.  Just the opposite; [...] was assisting the police, as [...] saw.  [...] never told [...] to deny police access to “her” bedroom.  Because [...] was the “proprietor” of the apartment, which [...] was visiting from another state, the police were justified in relying on [...]’s consent, regardless of whether [...]’s consent was voluntary.  Sufficient credible evidence supports the trial judge’s finding that the consent given by [...] was voluntary, and thus valid.