Does the term "accessing" or "intercepting" an electronic communication need to be interpreted as an eavesdropping warrant?

¹³ The incorporation of New York State law governing the issuance of warrants means that the District Attorney may have needed to seek eavesdropping warrants, which he did not do, before "intercepting or accessing ... an electronic communication" (CPL 700.05[1] ; see also Penal Law 250.00[6] ). Prior to obtaining an eavesdropping warrant, the District Attorney would have had to establish "that normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried, or to be too dangerous to employ" (CPL 700.15 [4 ] ). Lower court rulings that eavesdropping warrants are required only for messages in transit (see e.g. Gurevich v. Gurevich, 24 Misc.3d 808, 811813, 886 N.Y.S.2d 558 [Sup.Ct., Kings County 2009] ) appear to have read the plain meaning of "accessing" out of the statute. However, Facebook did not raise that defect here, and I note it only in passing.