but the statute is rationally related to its goal because it requires that a reasonable person could be deceived. Therefore, the statute prevents individuals from posing as law enforcement officers and prevents citizens from mistakenly relying on individuals who look like law enforcement officers. We hold that section 843.085(1) is rationally related to a legitimate government interest and thus does not violate substantive due process. We note that even if an intermediate scrutiny test were used because of an incidental effect on speech, we would hold that preventing crimes by persons wearing or displaying law enforcement items is an important governmental objective, and section 843.085 is substantially related to that objective. See TM. v. State, 784 So.2d 442, 444 n. 1 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we hold that section 843.085 is not
holding that a gender classification must serve important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives recognizing an intermediate level of scrutiny in which the governmental objective must be important and the challenged law must be substantially related to that objective holding that a state law that allowed the state to assume only partial jurisdiction over indians and indian territory did not require strict scrutiny and was rationally related to a valid state objective holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives