The opinion actually does seem to suggest that it was okay to lie about the existence of the records - it's near the end, here's the relevant section:

> Finally, Plaintiff maintains that Broward violated the FPRA by falsely denying the existence of surveillance footage from the security checkpoint.

> Like FOIA, the FPRA provides that Florida citizens have a broad right to inspect the records of public bodies absent a clear and specific exemption from disclosure.

> TSA regulations, meanwhile, provide that airport operators must “(1) Restrict the distribution, disclosure, and availability of sensitive security information (SSI), as defined in part 1520 of this chapter, to persons with a need to know; and (2) Refer all requests for SSI by other persons to TSA.” 49 CFR § 1542.101(c); see also id. §1520.9(a)(3) (providing that airport operators must “[r]efer requests by other persons for SSI to TSA”).

> Here, Broward acted pursuant to federal regulations and the OTA when it consulted the TSA regarding Plaintiff’s records request, and it acted at the direction of the TSA in denying the existence of surveillance footage. The Court therefore has difficulty in concluding that Broward’s actions could be unlawful under the FPRA.