level of review. Rather, we agree with the trial court’s use of the rational basis test in its substantive due process analysis. See Walker, 444 So.2d at 1138-39 (recognizing that under the rational basis test legislation will be upheld if it is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest). The trial court held that section 843.085 did not violate substantive due process but certified the question of whether section 843.085 was unconstitutional for criminalizing innocent conduct, “specifically the wearing of paraphernalia that can be purchased through commercial channels by the public and could be misconstrued as indicia of authority.” A statute can violate substantive due process for arbitrarily criminalizing innocent conduct. See State v. Saiez, 489 So.2d 1125 (Fla.1986) (<HOLDING>). The legislature does, however, have the
holding that statute which prohibited possession of machines designed to produce credit cards did not have a rational relationship to goal of preventing credit card fraud because the statute did not require intent to put the equipment to an unlawful use holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable holding that comment on absence of explanation as well as insufficiency of girlfriends explanation for defendants possession of stolen credit cards was not harmless error since defendant was only person other than his girlfriend who could have explained the possession of the credit cards holding that the use of convenience checks drawn on a credit card account to pay a debt owed on another credit card was a preferential transfer subject to avoidance because the new lender did not direct or require the loaned funds to be paid to mbna and the debtor could have used the borrowed funds to purchase assets instead of paying the mbna debt recognizing statutory credit