he was not pulled over. It would have come to that if the OP kept driving instead of dodging into the quickie mart but that is irrelevant. A cop can make contact with an individual outside of his vehicle and it not invoke the rules required to make a traffic stop since, well, it isn't a traffic stop.
and yes, I figured the money was for his lawyer. If he wants that, he is going to have to pay another lawyer and sue the cop. If the OP wasn't actually guilty of the DUI, he might find assistance in places like the ACLU or some similar entity but I suspect they would not be all excited about defending the OP in such an issue due to his actual guilt. It makes it look like they are defending guilty people.
The thing I find odd is that there was no mention of the cop obtaining key to the stall and unlocking it. I would have thought that would be the basis for the rights violation and not simply overhearing a conversation that, to me, was not covered under their right to privacy as it was hear outside of the stall. Anybody that walked into the apparent multiple user facility could have heard that. Like I said before, I disagree with the decision.
I also do not see why all evidence was suppressed. Since the cop was intending on making contact with the OP, even with the statement suppressed, the cop would have independently discovered the intoxication, or at least reasonable suspicion to continue an investigation once he was aware of the fact the OP had been drinking due to the odor emanating from the OP and quite possibly his lack of stability.

