Well, then, the question is - why did the police get a warrant?
Everything posted here sys they did not need one - not to search the vehicle, not to go in and arrest the perps for obstructing justice and reesisting arrest.
What I’m seeing is that it all hinges on “probable cause” - why did they attempt to search the bus in the first place?
If their probable cause falls apart, then I suppose so does “obstructing justice”, if there is no justice in searching the bus. So does “resisting arrest” if the entire situation was based on a standoff if the police are proven wrong in their initial assumption they have a right search the bus since the arrest would be invalid if the obstruction charge is invalid?
The police affidavit says that the officer that made the stop smelled marijuana and saw smoke and that gave him probable cause. The bus driver refused to reopen the door and eventually help up a copy of the Constitution.
A search which has been approved by a judge is always more likely to get past a suppression hearing. When in doubt, get a warrant. Warrantless searches are legal and needed under certain circumstances. But you better be prepared to defend your reason for not getting a warrant.
Just so you know, the rules for such things are not the same across the country. SCOTUS sets the minimum standard for searches. Individual states sometimes have stricter rules set by statute or state court rulings.