Anybody who has watched at least one episode of Law & Order knows that in America, anyone accused of a crime is considered “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s the way it should be, at least. When a person is accused of a crime, the burden of proof belongs to the accuser.

But what most people don’t realize is that police routinely use a constitutionally dubious form of legal jiu-jitsu called “civil asset forfeiture” to flip this basic principle of fairness on its head. With civil asset forfeiture, police literally accuse your stuff of a crime, and you as the owner have to prove that your stuff is innocent.

Here’s an example: In 2010 Stephen Skinner and his son Jonathan, both African-American, were on a road trip to Las Vegas, Nevada, for a vacation when they were pulled over by New Mexico State Police for going 5 mph over the speed limit. The trooper searched their rental car and found several thousand dollars in cash and coins in their luggage that the two men had set aside for gaming at the casinos. The trooper called Skinner, then in his late 50s, “boy” and released him with a warning that “it’s not over.”

And sure enough, it wasn’t.

As they passed through Albuquerque, police and federal agents pulled them over on a pretext once again, went straight to their luggage, and confiscated their cash with no justification other than the racist assumption that two black men traveling with a big wad of cash must have come by it illegally. Neither Stephen or Jonathan were ever actually accused of a crime, much less convicted. Yet now the cops had their vacation money, and this money grab was perfectly legal.

Most people who have property seized in this manner give it up as lost. The cost of hiring an attorney to argue before a judge that your property is “innocent” or, in other words, was not criminally acquired or used in the commission of a crime, often exceeds the value of the property. This is big business for police departments across the United States, who rely on these seized assets to pad their budgets. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, estimates that in 2014 alone the Department of Justice took in $4.5 billion in forfeited assets. The assets taken in annually by local and state police departments are doubtless even higher.

Fortunately, Stephen and Jonathan reached out to the ACLU of New Mexico, and with our help, they fought in court to force the government to return their property. The lawsuit made headlines throughout New Mexico, causing a groundswell of outrage at the fundamental unfairness of the practice.

In 2015, the ACLU of New Mexico, in collaboration with the Institute for Justice, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Rio Grande Foundation, helped pass a bill that abolished civil asset forfeiture, requiring police to obtain a criminal conviction in court before they can take a person’s property. The bill also requires that any forfeited assets must go into a state general fund to reduce the profit motive inherent in this law enforcement practice. The bill passed unanimously, and New Mexico now has the strongest protections against civil asset forfeiture in the nation.

But several New Mexico police departments were too addicted to the easy money. The Albuquerque Police Department, among others, refused to fully comply with the new state law claiming that it didn’t apply to their DWI vehicle seizure program. Albuquerque police continued to seize thousands of vehicles pre-conviction and demand thousands of dollars in “fees” to secure their return. If people couldn’t pay the ransom, the department kept the vehicle.

Arlene Harjo, whose son was pulled over for suspected drunken driving, was one of many whose vehicle was taken under the city ordinance. Even though she wasn’t in the car at the time, Albuquerque police seized Harjo’s vehicle and demanded $4,000 dollars for its return. But Harjo refused to comply with the scam. She filed a lawsuit against the department with the help of the Institute for Justice, and, last week, she won. A federal judge handed down a landmark ruling that Albuquerque’s vehicle seizure program violates residents’ constitutional rights by taking their property before they’ve been convicted of a crime.

This is a major moment in the fight against the unjust practice of civil asset forfeiture. Not only will New Mexico law enforcement agencies be forced to comply with our state prohibition against the practice, but this victory establishes an important legal precedent that victims of civil asset forfeiture can use to fight back nationwide.

And indeed, the problem is not just in New Mexico. In 2015, the ACLU sued an Arizona county attorney and county sheriff challenging that state’s civil asset forfeiture laws, which create perverse and unconstitutional incentives for law enforcement to build multimillion-dollar slush funds that they get to control. 

More than anything, this ruling out of New Mexico is a powerful reminder that brave individuals can still take a stand against systems of injustice, crack their foundations, and bring them tumbling to the ground.

All it takes is a few people like Stephen Skinner and Arlene Harjo who say, “Enough. Not today. No more.”

Ramon Ramirez remembers the bad old days, the days when racial profiling in Oregon was rampant and uncontrolled. The days when local police grabbed citizens off the street and demanded to see ID. The days when the browner color of a person’s skin alone could make them a police suspect.

Then, in 1987, the Oregon state government took a step to end this terror. That year the state legislature passed, with overwhelming bipartisan support, an anti-profiling law that has come to be known as Oregon’s “sanctuary” law. The law protects against unfair targeting, interrogating, and detaining of Oregonians simply because they are perceived to be undocumented.

The law has gradually improved the situation in Oregon. As a civil rights leader and long-time resident of Woodburn, Oregon, Ramirez can testify to this.

“Before Oregon had this law, I saw immigration agents, aided by local police, busting down doors and grabbing people off the street, with no way of knowing their immigration status,” Ramirez said. “My friends and neighbors, including U.S. citizens, were being harassed by local police demanding to see their papers. Passing this law made things a lot better.”

Recently, the law has come under attack. A ballot measure initiated by the Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) has qualified for the November ballot. Measure 105 has one aim: to throw out the long-standing state “sanctuary” law that has protected Oregonians from unfair racial profiling for over 30 years.

OFIR’s innocuous-sounding name belies its actual goals. The group has deep ties to a national network of anti-immigrant organizations seeking to reduce immigration to the U.S, including the Minutemen and the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), which has contributed significant funding in support of Measure 105.

In response, the American Civil Liberties Union has teamed up with immigrant rights group Causa Oregon and over 200 other businesses, labor unions, faith groups, civil rights organizations, and law enforcement leaders to create Oregonians United Against Profiling. Together, we have launched a statewide campaign to defeat Measure 105 in November.

Oregon’s “sanctuary” law is nothing radical. In fact, it was passed with the support of Republicans and Democrats. Under the current law, local police retain the authority to arrest and prosecute anyone who commits a crime. The law also permits Oregon police to hold unauthorized immigrants if federal officials have obtained a judicial warrant. What police can’t do is detain someone on baseless grounds, such as their skin color or facial features, which was happening 30 years ago.  

The ACLU stands in opposition to Measure 105 because getting rid of Oregon’s anti-profiling law would open the door to more civil rights violations in Oregon. Right now, immigrants in Oregon don’t need to worry that calling the police will lead to harassment or their families being torn apart. Throwing out the “sanctuary” law could turn Oregon’s police into an arm of Trump’s deportation force.

For three decades, Oregon’s sanctuary law has, in the words of Multnomah County Sheriff Mike Reese, given “clear guidance to local law enforcement on complicated immigration issues.” The law allows local police to focus on solving crime and keeping communities safe while providing important civil rights protections. That is why, come November, it is important to say no to Measure 105. 

Chrystal McCadden thought she had done everything necessary to ensure an appropriate, safe educational environment for Cameron, her 7-year-old son who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In addition to obtaining appropriate professional services for her son, she also worked with the school district in Flint, Michigan, to develop an individualized education plan, or IEP. Over the course of 13 months, she also met repeatedly with the administrators of an after-school program run by the local chamber of commerce to discuss Cameron’s condition, needs, and strategies for addressing his disability-related challenges. 

Nevertheless, on Oct. 12, 2015, when Cameron allegedly ran across bleachers and kicked a supply cart — conduct consistent with his disability — the afterschool program declined to follow protocols specified by the child’s IEP. Instead, a police officer was summoned. The officer encountered a little boy who was just shy of four feet tall and who weighed about 55 pounds. Cameron was immediately seized and placed in handcuffs. 

When the afterschool program got around to calling Ms. McCadden, the fact that her son was in cuffs was mentioned almost in passing. She disregarded it, believing that the handcuffs must have been toys, part of Halloween activities or a game. When she arrived and learned to her horror that what was done to her son was no game, she vigorously demanded the removal of the restraints. She was then even more alarmed to learn that Cameron could not be released because the officer did not have the key. Almost a full hour passed before the child was finally released. 

On behalf of Cameron, the ACLU of Michigan, the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program, and private cooperating attorneys filed a lawsuit against the Flint Police Department and the Flint Chamber of Commerce. The lawsuit asserts claims for Fourth Amendment and disability law violations. 

In addition to requesting that the court declare Cameron’s handcuffing illegal, order that it never happens again, and award compensation to the McCaddens, the lawsuit and a large coalition of local grassroots community organizations demand the total withdrawal of police officers from Flint’s elementary schools. Against a backdrop of a water crisis that has had a demonstrable physical impact on school children throughout the city, members of the community believe money spent on police in elementary schools would be better spent on professionals who are trained and equipped to deal with the problems of Flint’s children. No one is satisfied with handcuffs as a response. 

Unfortunately, Cameron’s experience was not unique. 

Although students with disabilities are only 12 percent of the national public school student population, they account for 75 percent of students subjected to physical restraint in schools. In addition, while African-American students like Cameron are only 19 percent of students with disabilities, they account for 36 percent of students subjected to mechanical restraints like handcuffs. 

More and more, schools in America are turning mundane disciplinary infractions and behaviors that should be addressed through IEPs or a conversation with a counselor into crimes. With the lawsuit, the McCadden family has said enough is enough. No child deserves to have handcuffs slapped on them, especially when their behavior is an expression of their disability. It’s disturbing that these words even need saying.