“It would be like the cops being called for a noisy party, they arrive and it is not noisy at all, but they go ahead and search the house while they are there.”
Actually, it would be more like being called for a noisy party, and noticing a couple smoking joints on the front lawn...
Wrong.
There was no visible sign of drug use in the car in this case. If the cops saw him smoking a joint in the car, they would have probable cause without the dog, and they would have probable cause to use a dog to find any hidden drugs in the car.
And you completely dodged commentary about the other case where SCOTUS ruled differently in a similar situation.