It would make sense that it did in this case. They were certainly communicating orally.
I'm not a lawyer. But it's my impression that the law is not about all communication in the sense of all speech between people, but communication in the sense of high-tech communications ... phones, wires, electronic means of transferring info.
I shouldnt go out on a limb. But I really think the prosecutor is trying to twist the law. She has to divorce the audio part of the tape from the visual part to argue that the law applies ... she's only alleging that the audio part might have been illegally obtained. To me this sounds like nonsense. I just doubt the law applies this way.
But like I said, I'm just a dumb layman. Of course it's always possible that a nonlawyer FReeper is smarter than a RAT prosecutor who loves ACORN.