In Michigan, can I win a motion to suppress evidence in OWI case if the video does not support the Police Report?

I cannot answer your question with absolute certainty. You need to meet up with a local lawyer and go through the facts of your case in detail. But I can try in give you a quick summary which also shows why you need a lawyer. REASONABLE SUSPICION IS NEEDED TO STOP A VEHICLE In order for a police officer to stop your vehicle, they need to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. In the case of Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968), the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. In Michigan, the Michigan Supreme Court has found that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. People v Custer, 465 Mich 319, 327 (2001) Further, the Custer case also indicates that a brief, on‑the‑scene detention of an individual is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion for the detention. Finally, any violation of the Michigan Traffic Code, including things like speeding and defective equipment, is enough for a cop to stop your vehicle. PRETEXTUAL STOP A pretextual stop is when a police officer uses an excuse to pull you over when he or she suspects you of doing something else. For instance, a pretextual stop may occur when a cop thinks you have drugs on you, and pulls you over for going one mile an hour over the speed limit. In Michigan, A traffic stop may not be used as a pretext to search for evidence of a crime. People v Haney, 192 Mich App 207, 209 (1991) When the police lack the reasonable suspicion necessary to support a stop and use a minor violation to stop and search a person for evidence of an unrelated serious crime, the stop is a mere pretext. Id However, so long as the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, the resulting traffic stop is not unlawful and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 363 (2002) Although many lawyers will tell you that the pretextual stop argument doesn’t have much weight, I have found that given the right set of facts, you can win the pretextual stop argument. Even if you don’t, juries don’t like cops pulling people over for no reason, so I’ve found hammering the cops about the lack of suspicion helps your case tremendously. NO REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP This is one of my favorite motions, as you wouldn’t believe how many video tapes I have seen where an officer stops somebody for no reason. Of course, in the police report, the cop will indicate that they stopped the suspect for something like “lane straddling,” yet when you watch the video, there is no weaving in the lane. That sounds like your case but as I said, talk to a lawyer NOW.

The answer is "maybe." Without reviewing the entire file I cannot give you a thorough answer. Please consult with an attorney experienced in this area of law.

The case law and statutory law isn't in your corner for a variety of reasons. First and foremost because the officer may consider the "totality of the circumstances" pursuant to case law. I.e., there are times when even short of an actual traffic violation an officer can pull you over. From a statutory perspective, you don't have to cross the fog line to be in violation of the motor vehicle code. Touching it will do the trick - gives the officer a basis to make a legal traffic stop. Can you argue a pre-textual stop? Sure. The prosecutor will instead call what the officer saw "reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot", which is the baseline legal standard to make a lawful stop - inside or outside of a car. Not to say you can't file it and argue it, but you certainly don't have a slam dunk. Add to that, you aren't an attorney. As the old adage goes, "an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client." Which is a fancy way of saying, "a person has a subjective interest in a matter, should not try to play the objective role of an attorney in court." Do yourself a favor, and hire an attorney. If you decide against hiring an attorney, best of luck, because the Prosecutor (unless he / she is lazy) is going to have a pretty straight forward response to your motion. Best of Luck.