Assume that an applicable state statute makes it a crime for a private citizen to own or possess a machine gun. For approximately three weeks, police officer Joe Monday had had probable cause to believe that Lemuel "Lemme" Wastem, a private citizen, possessed an arsenal of machine guns in his apartment. Acting on this probable cause but without a warrant, Monday knocked on the door of Wastem's apartment late one evening as Wastem was writing a letter to his mother. Monday asked whether he could come in to talk to Wastem. Wastem let Monday in$.$ Then, without Wastem's consent, Monday began searching the apartment. He proceeded down a hall, through a closed door to Wastem's bedroom, and opened the also closed door to Wastem's bedroom closet. There, Monday found several machine guns sitting on the floor of the closet. He arrested Wastem for an alleged violation of the statute mentioned above. In a pre$-$trial motion, Wastem's attorney has asked that the court apply the exclusionary rule and suppress the evidence yielded by Monday's search of Wastem's apartment. Should the evidence be suppressed?

Group of answer choices

Yes, because the search, though warrantless, was conducted by an officer who was acting to further the public's safety.

No$,$ because Monday had probable cause to believe that Wastem had the machine guns in his apartment.

No$,$ because Wastem voluntarily allowed Monday to enter the apartment and because the machine guns were in plain view in the closet.

Yes, because the unconsented search did not fall within the exceptions to the general rule for warrantless searches.