In State v. Plunkett, Warren App. No. CA2007-01-012, 2008 Ohio 1014, the Court determined that a defendant's motion was insufficient because it contained boilerplate language that merely listed every fathomable defect in the collection of evidence in an OVI case. Plunkett at P15. Further, the motion was overly broad when it listed the evidence sought to be suppressed, followed by eight vague grounds upon which the motion was based. Id. Even though the motion in Plunkett was insufficient to raise the state's burden, it did provide sufficient notice of a general challenge to the admissibility of the test. See Plunkett at P18.