Hypothetical: Mr Stevens owned and operated a large mail order nutritional supplement business. Numerous customer complaints prompted law enforcement authorities to suspect that Mr Stevens used fraudulent practices to build his successful business. He advertised using false information, phony surveys presented as fact, and even medical professionals who Stevens claimed developed his supplements were fictitious. He customarily double charged credit cards. He also provided false information to banks to secure lines of credit. Law enforcement, conducting a criminal investigation of Stevens and his questionable business practices, compelled his Internet service provider (ISP) to allow access to his account and seized over 15,000 private emails from without a search warrant but rather based on the Stored Communications Act. Mr Stevens was convicted in District Court of conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, andmoney laundering based on the information contained in his private emails.

Question: Was law enforcement authorized to compel the ISP to allow access to Stevens' email account? Was a search warrant needed for the ISP search? How are search warrants based on the Fourth Amendment and administrative subpoenas and court orders based on the Stored Communications Act related? Should Mr Stevens' conviction be overturned on appeal? Explain why or why not, citing the appropriate law or case(s) to support your position.