In State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54, 58, 1994 Ohio 452, 636 N.E.2d 319, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that a defendant's motion to suppress, which was an exact copy of a sample motion to suppress found in Ohio Driving Under the Influence Law (1990) 136-137, Section 11.16, was sufficient to raise issues regarding compliance with the Ohio Department of Health regulations and to shift the burden of proof to the State to demonstrate substantial compliance with those regulations. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d at 57. As such, the Court held that it was impermissible to deny the motion to suppress without a hearing. Id. at 58.