State v. Crossno (713 So. 2d 1093, 1998)

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s determination that section 322.34, Florida Statutes (1995), is unconstitutional. We are the last of the district courts to consider the constitutionality of this statute. Each of the other four district courts has found this statute to be constitutional, albeit employing different rationales. See State v. Keirn, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1144, — So.2d - (Fla. 4th DCA May 6, 1998); State v. Gloster, 703 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review granted, — So.2d (Fla. May 15, 1998)(No. 92,235); Pirtle v. State, 700 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Raulerson v. State, 699 So.2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), review granted, 709 So.2d 537 (Fla.1998).

We join in the view espoused by the Fourth District in State v. Keirn and hold that the statute is constitutional. Therefore, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.