CFAA talks about "unauthorized access", not about any "unwanted" interaction with a computer. Though I think FBI will simply claims that the steps used at that stage of the investigation were implicitly permitted by the fact that it was conducted for a lawful government purpose (there's some fancy legal term for this, but I forget what it is), and wasn't otherwise forbidden to the government since it didn't involve a search or seizure.
If accepted, that would mean that J. Random Hacker doesn't get to mess around with websites just because the FBI got to, even in situations short of CFAA violations.
edit: I guess they could have been providing incorrect passwords for an account that they created. I agree that is easier to call unwanted.
Basically all the analyst said he did was to load the SR website far enough until the captcha popped up, and notice in the wireshark (or equivalent) logs that a non-Tor IP address was reached from the SR website.
If the analyst tooled around on the website after that, then even if the court were to call foul on that subsequent access, the public IP address wasn't derived from tooling around so it (and the evidence derived from that) wouldn't be at risk either.
if i remember correctly an error page leaked an ip in 2012/2013. someone had to realize the captcha was leaking at some point? consider me confused ;)