Exactly. That is where I think the Court got this particular case wrong. The guy objected to the search. The cops knew he objected to the search. The cops arrested the guy, and removed him from the premises. Once they removed him (and his objection) from the premises, they proceeded to search, still knowing that he objected to the search.
Under those facts, calling the search a "consent" search seems an awful stretch, to me at least. Particularly since, once the guy was arrested, the risk of evidence destruction was nil, and they could have easily gotten a warrant to search the premises.
An hour later, permission was given. You don’t think people ever change their minds? Nor was he arrested as a pretense to get him out of the way.