Got a search warrant with NO probable cause, over a phone call with no identity, and fake number. Add that the school backed up her story. A judge would have to be crazy to grant a warrant on such flimsy facts, or lack of them. There are any number of good reasons to refuse a search, and not because of illegal contraband. The DNA STILL would have pointed to the real criminals if they did get a flimsy search warrant.
She is lucky that the cop recognized that she was swatted, another cop and she would have been screwed anyway. I would still stick with no search without a warrant.
Citizen: "Officer, I will co-operate with your investigation to the full extent required by law."
Cop: "Great! So, you don't mind us searching your car?"
Citizen: "Refused. I do not consent to an encounter with you. I will not answer any questions without an attorney."
Cop: "If you have nothing to hide, why are you not cooperating with us?"
Citizen: "Officer, I
will cooperate with your investigation
to the full extent required by law. I absolutely will."
Cop: "But, you're not consenting to our search! You're not cooperating with us!"
Citizen: "Officer, please point out
exactly how I am not cooperating with your investigation
to the full extent required by law."
Note: Credit where credit is due: all the police spokesman who said, "the suspect is not cooperating with investigators." Smear tactic!! Those police spokesman could just as easily said, "the suspect is rightfully exercising his right against self-incrimination, his right to silence, invoking a precious right paid for in blood, smoke, and treasure across 576 years of English history." But, oh, no. Those spokesman tried a slimy smear tactic. Tough for them if their use of a smear tactic prompted thoughtfulness.