In this specific case we have a police interfering with a case about an undercover officer by informing the suspect about the under cover agents identity. Howev

In this specific case we have a police interfering with a case about an undercover officer by informing the suspect about the under cover agents identity. However, the whole affair was actually a sting operation to test if the officer would interfere. It is a bit of a special situation since the interfering was over a fake case, through the legal frame work of sting operations has always been a bit grey. It seems to me however that it flights clearly above that of first amendment rights. It seems simply that the prosecutor chose to go after CFAA because the case is about a sting case rather than a real one. Had the police officer interfered in a real case, where a criminal had been given information that obstructed police officers in their job, the case had been about that. If that is true then the case has very little to do about internal policy decisions, exceeded permissions, unauthorized vs authorized users, employee contracts and so on. It is actually about sting operations and a prosecutor who attempts to bypass that discussion by using a law designed for a different purpose.