Why did the person consent to a vehicle search for a supposed minor safety violation? The simple fact that cocaine was in her vehicle should have had her refuse the search let alone that there was no probable cause unless she was wasted and showed signs of intoxication. The fact that this made it to the Supreme court is astonishing. The article is vague and there has to be a lot more than what was presented.
She had no way of winning if she had drugs in the car. Deny permission and cops will detain you until the drug sniffing dog arrives, when the dog "alerts" to drugs, then the cops have probable cause.