3 ms·
Dude/crank here. Read section IV-e of the opinion (starting p. 17) for the discussion on the lying.
by tsaoutourpants 13y ago
Dude/crank here. Read section IV-e of the opinion (starting p. 17) for the discussion on the lying.
- rayiner 13y agoYou're missing the court's reasoning. First, the issue is moot, since you got the footage. Mootness is a Constitutional limitation on the judicial power. Constitutional standing requires an injury, causation, and redressability. If your injury has already been redressed through the release of the video, it's Constitutionally improper for the District Court to adjudicate the issue. Second, the District Court isn't saying that it's okay to lie in response to a request under the FPRA in general. Rather, its saying that because Broward was acting at the direction of the TSA, the TSA's direction to deny the existence of the footage preempted any requirement under the FPRA to respond to the request. Remember, lying is not in general illegal. It's only illegal in specific contexts under specific statutes.
- tsaoutourpants 13y ago1) Mootness: see Roe v. Wade. A decent breakdown on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness#Capable_of_repetition.2C_yet_evading_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness#Capable_of_repetition.... 2) The TSA doesn't get to "direct" a state agency to violate state law unless they are empowered to do so by law. There is no basis in law for the TSA's assertion that lying is required. A Glomar response would have protected their interests, but they lied to avoid having to admit to having embarrassing footage.