Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick was railing against the "liberal" 9th Circuit this week after a three-judge panel tossed out an illegal Northern Nevada search.

Many of the judges on that particular federal appeals court -- based in San Francisco -- do indeed deserve the "liberal" moniker. But the decision in question was authored in part by one of the panel's finest jurists -- Judge Alex Kozinski, who is no big government leftist -- and made eminent sense.

The question at hand: Do you give up some of your constitutional rights when you are simply arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, and not yet convicted?

Mr. Gammick and the U.S. attorney's office in Reno argue that you do. The court wisely held otherwise.

The case involved a Douglas County man, Raymond Lee Scott, arrested on drug charges. He was released on his own recognizance while awaiting resolution of the case and agreed to random drug tests and warrantless searches.

He was later arrested again after he failed a drug test and officers turned up weapons at Scott's home during a warrantless search.

A federal court tossed out the firearms charge on the grounds that the officers needed probable cause to conduct the search, regardless of what conditions Scott had accepted. The 9th Circuit agreed.

"The right to keep someone in jail does not in any way imply the right to release that person subject to unconstitutional conditions -- such as chopping off a finger or giving up one's first-born," the 2-1 majority said. "Once a state decides to release a criminal defendant pending trial, the state may impose only such conditions as are constitutional."

Opponents of the decision argue it will discourage judges from releasing the accused on bail. But, in fact, the warrantless search condition served no real purpose other than to make things easier for the police. There was absolutely nothing to stop law enforcement officials from obtaining a warrant to search Smith's home if they had probable cause to believe they might turn up contraband.

If you believe otherwise, should authorities be allowed to set as a condition of bail a requirement that a defendant not practice his religion, peaceably assemble or write a letter to the editor?

Those who have not been convicted of any crime -- who are presumed innocent until proven guilty -- should not have to give up their constitutional freedoms in order to avail themselves of their bail rights under the Eighth Amendment.