The judge dismissed the public records charge for two reasons: 1) because they were allowed to lie, and 2) even if they weren't, they ended up getting the video, so now it's moot. The points stand separately.
Incidentally, the mootness justification is incorrect as well. When a government action is capable of repetition while permanently evading review (as is clearly the case here: they're not allowed to lie, but if you catch them, it's moot), an exception to the mootness doctrine is created.
The court never ruled one way or the other on the substantive question of whether FPRA was violated by Broward's lie.
It suggests—in dicta—that it probably wasn't[1] but ultimately declines to definitively rule on the the issue[2].
[1] "The Court therefore has difficulty in concluding that Broward’s actions could be unlawful under the FPRA."
[2] "At any rate, assuming without finding that Broward did not comply with the FPRA when denying the existence of the requested footage, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s FPRA
claim ... is now moot". (Emphasis added)
A "mootness" justification is perfectly applicable here though.
An issue is 'moot' if there is no relief possible. The relief that was sought for lying, according to the ruling, was the release of the checkpoint video. But it had already been released, therefore there's nothing further for the judge to rule on.
Were you suing for other types of damages based on the Broward Co. letter? Did the judge somehow misinterpret the damages you sought?
Either way the judge has not ruled that the agency is "allowed to lie" in general, and even in this specific case only mentioned the idea in passing but then ultimately judged it moot (i.e. no precedent set one way or the other).
"Declaratory relief refers to a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages. By seeking a declaratory judgment, the party making the request is seeking for an official declaration of the status of a matter in controversy." [1]
So, what was the matter in controversy here? And why were you willing to settle for no action being ordered or damages awarded even if you won?
Apparently both you and the TSA agree that Broward's initial letter was deliberately inaccurate, so that can't have been the matter under controversy.
The controversy is whether it was lawful for the letter to be deliberately inaccurate. Broward maintains that is was, and with good motive: Florida law makes it a criminal matter to lie in a public records response.
That mootness exception is only applicable if the requested relief was for the government to stop lying. As far as I can tell, the requested relief was only for this particular surveillance footage to be provided, not an injunction governing future government conduct. And the court usually can't grant relief not requested.
I don't agree with your characterization that the judge endorsed lying. But good luck on your case. RCFP.org might be able to point you in the direction of a lawyer knowledgable in FOI law. I think you will need a good lawyer if you expect to prevail.
Incidentally, the mootness justification is incorrect as well. When a government action is capable of repetition while permanently evading review (as is clearly the case here: they're not allowed to lie, but if you catch them, it's moot), an exception to the mootness doctrine is created.