That’s not at all what it says.
"Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home."
Obviously the occupant who is still there can consent to a warrantless search. In this case, the guy had registered an objection, before being arrested. I think the police should have gotten a warrant given the prior SCOTUS ruling that one objection required a warrant.
It's the fact that he objected before being removed that makes this a bad ruling. Had he not been there in the first place to object, then the wife could have consented.