In Norwood v. Kahn. 1st Dist. Nos. C-060497, C-060498, and C-060499, 2007 Ohio 2799, the Court discussed the problem of shotgun motions to suppress, where "the defendant essentially regurgitates the administrative code and then waits for the police office to forget to testify about one of the aspects of compliance." Id. at P7. The Court decided to follow another appellate court's approach, holding that "to require the state to respond specifically and particularly to issues raised in a motion, an accused must raise issues that can be supported by facts, either known or discovered, that are specific to the issues raised. Unless an accused, either through discovery or cross-examination at the hearing, points to facts to support the allegations that specific health regulations have been violated in some way, the burden on the state to show substantial compliance with those regulations remains general and slight." Id. at P8.