In Norwood v. Kahn, 1st Dist. Nos. C-060497, C-060498, C-060499, 2007 Ohio 2799, the defendant used a "shotgun" motion to suppress, alleging over fifteen violations of the Ohio Adm. Code in the administration of a breath analysis test, including a violation of the requirement that the instrument check solution be refrigerated. Id. at fn. 5. The Kahn court found that the motion was sufficiently specific to shift the burden of proof to the State to demonstrate substantial compliance, but, despite presenting testimony of compliance with only some of the alleged code violations, including presenting no evidence on the refrigeration requirement, the court found that the State had met its burden of proof to have the motion denied. Id. at P10. In Kahn, the court noted that the defendant had failed to use the discovery process at the time of the motion hearing to determine whether the State had, in fact, failed to comply with specific regulation requirements. Kahn, 2007 Ohio 2799, at P9. The court, therefore, found that he did not have factual support for any of the allegations in his motion, and, as such, evidence of general compliance with the Ohio Adm. Code was sufficient for the State to demonstrate substantial compliance. Id.