This line is the crux, and the problem is that "authorized" means subtle, yet critically important, different things to different people.
The officer was surely "authorized" in the sense that he had technical authorization to log into the system and accomplish the task.
But in the sense that "authorization" is defined by more than just technical controls, and also has to do with many dynamic situations that technical controls can't often restrict (or just aren't in place), it doesn't sound like was "authorized".
Think of walking into a restaurant and they have a sign that says "Employees Only Behind Counter". Even if there was no technical/physical control preventing you from going behind the counter (eg there was no locked door or anything like that), I think it would still be understood that you as a customer do not have "authorization" to go back there.
In my experience as a security consultant, my technically-minded clients typically think of "authorization" as the first way, defined by technical controls and thinking that lack of technical controls in a system means they have carte blanche to do whatever they want with that system. But my experience with anyone outside of tech is that they don't think of it that way at all, and that just because you have the physical/technical ability to do something does not make it okay to do that.
"Authorization" is an overloaded term and the CFAA suffer for it, but personally I do not think an average person would think the officer was "authorized" to do what he did, even if he did have the technical access to do it.
The points about "average employees technically violating the CFAA by doing stuff like reading the news on their work laptop" are valid concerns and I think they need to be resolved, but I think that is a completely different concern than someone like this officer abusing their access for legitimately bad acts.