I find it weird that this statement came from the judge, while the representative(s) of the airport disagreed: "While this incident remains under investigation

I find it weird that this statement came from the judge, while the representative(s) of the airport disagreed: "While this incident remains under investigation, we have been able to determine that this gentleman did not pose a security risk to the airport or to the travelling public." But maybe this is just the airport trying to cover itself from litigation, not so much trying to make an honest statement. I guess the point here is that the judge needs to argue that the person was a (potential) danger in order to persecute or indict the airport in court?