I realized then that my ex wife who was also at the game called to report that i had been drinking and thats why cop was there and followed my car.
That's all the cop needs for the reasonable suspicion needed to make the stop and investigate. It's not a high standard; the cop just needs some reason to believe you may have committed a crime. The statement of a witness that told the police that you had been drinking and then got in your car to drive meets that standard. Once the cop made the stop, he needed probable cause to make the arrest. Your statement confirming the drinking helped, but in general the cop either needed to get evidence that your blood alcohol concentration was .08% or greater or evidence of impairment. If you failed the FST and/or showed other signs of impairment, that would be enough. Again, probable cause is not a very high standard. At trial, the state would need to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's where the high standard applies.
Anyway, I am going to a suppression hearing for which I filed for in just two days and I hope the Judge will throw out this B.S. that lacks any real evidence and which began with an illegal traffic stop.
A motion to suppress what, exactly? Your FST results? Your admission of drinking? The empty beer container? From what you said here, I don't see a good basis for supression any of those things.
I strongly suggest you see an attorney to represent you. Doing a DUI defense pro se is a good way to end up convicted even if you might have a good defense. You are going up against trained and experienced prosecutors, and unless you have a very good understanding of your state's rules of criminal procedure, rules of evidence, and trial practice, you will be at a distinct disadvantage.