1 - vehicle wasn't involved and was about to be towed for footage as the article implies (owner came by and gave them footage during tow process)
2 - tesla was towed along with 2 other vehicles from a shootout in the parking lot (probably the cars were shot or had other evidence on them)
3 - the crime happened inside the tesla (was going to be towed regardless)
Which is definitely something that shouldn't happen and is a violation of constitutional rights.
In that example it's unclear why a warrant would even be needed, it was parked in a hotel parking lot and it appears that they made no effect to contact the owner before requesting the warrant. It'd be really interesting to see what their justification was for asking to seize someone's car instead of just walking inside and asking the desk clerk to call them so they could ask for the footage.
Edit: cursory Googling turned up an old law journal article about this exact subject that lays out the arguments for and against: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... (PDF) I don't know how the law has evolved since it was written.