A 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has correctly ruled that federal investigators overstepped constitutional bounds when they improperly searched stored e-mails without a warrant in a fraud investigation.

It was a small but significant victory for Americans who have watched their civil rights erode under the Bush administration. The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the decision, and there could be an appeal to the full 6th Circuit Court, or, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oddly, the investigation involved the owner of an herb company that markets supplements, including a "natural male enhancement" product. But Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are there for the offbeat as well as the traditional citizen. It's unlikely Ernesto Miranda or Larry Flynt are the kind of guys you'd want your daughter to marry, but cases involving each helped secure citizens' rights.

In the case at hand, Steven Warshak, president and owner of Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, correctly maintained that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the government went after his e-mail accounts from the Internet service companies he used in 2005. The government argued that warrants were not needed to read stored e-mails.

Fortunately, the court didn't buy it. Judge Boyce Martin agreed with a district court ruling that e-mail users should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their e-mails. Likening e-mail to telephone usage or sealed letters, he added, "e-mail is an ever-increasing mode of private communication, and protection of shared communications through this medium is as important to Fourth Amendment principles today as protecting telephone conversations has been in the past."

The government's case against the herbal firm owner involves allegations that he defrauded customers and banks out of millions in an alleged scheme that included billing credit cards without authorization. Not surprisingly, he has pleaded not guilty.

Regardless of Mr. Warshak's guilt or innocence, this case should serve as a reminder to Americans that their civil liberties are alive and well -- as long as they are willing to preserve them for everyone.