Netflix released a movie called “Rebel Ridge” earlier in September, and it is currently trending as one of the most-watched films. It is unique in that it is a revenge thriller centered around a government practice that largely flies under the radar: Civil asset forfeiture.

The film has all the hallmarks of a classic action movie in which the protagonist enters a small town and immediately clashes with corrupt authorities. However, “Rebel Ridge” is different as it brings to light a serious problem without being over-the-top preachy.

The movie begins with a former U.S. marine traveling to a fictional Louisana town carrying $30,000 to bail out his brother. He is soon confronted by police officers who steal his money under civil asset forfeiture when one of the officers “suspected” that it was being used to fund drug enterprises.

The officers had no evidence of wrongdoing on the Marine’s part, nor did they even bother to check out his story before seizing his cash. A high-octane confrontation ensues in which the protagonist goes to extreme measures to retrieve his stolen cash after exhausting all legal methods.

The film is entertaining in its execution and highlights one of the most insidious practices perpetuated by federal, state, and local government agencies.

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice that allows law enforcement officers to seize property if they merely suspect that it is being used for criminal purposes without due process. This can include cash, vehicles, homes, and other types of property. In many cases, the authorities do not even need to charge or convict the individual of a crime.

Civil asset forfeiture, also known as “Policing for Profit,” has been criticized by political figures on both sides of the aisle. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been one of the most vocal critics of the practice, calling it “egregious” and arguing that it is not constitutional.

To make matters even worse, once law enforcement steals a person’s property under civil asset forfeiture, it is extremely difficult for the victim to retrieve their property. The process for challenging the theft can be long, arduous, and expensive, often requiring the aid of an attorney. For this reason, most victims simply give up – especially when the costs associated with fighting the theft rise higher than the value of the property that was stolen.

Supporters of civil asset forfeiture argue that it is a necessary tool for dismantling organized criminal networks. In some instances, it can be used to benefit victims of crimes, such as those who were defrauded by investor Bernie Madoff.

However, there have been many cases where police departments have used the practice to fill their coffers.

In a real-life incident similar to the events of the film, a former U.S. Marine in Nevada had his life savings of $87,000 stolen by the highway patrol during a 2021 traffic stop. He was not charged with a crime, but the officers falsely claimed, without proof, that his money was somehow connected to drug crimes. The Marine eventually retrieved his money after a seven-month battle.

A Rochester, New York resident recently won a years-long battle to reclaim $8,040 that law enforcement officers had stolen from her home under civil asset forfeiture. The officers stole her cash as evidence used to arrest her boyfriend. She was never charged with a crime.

A California couple in the wholesale jewelry business became locked in a legal battle with Indiana after state officers stole $42,000 of their money being used in a business transaction. The officers intercepted the money at a FedEx hub in Indianapolis, where it was in transit to the couple’s customer in Virginia.

Even though the couple never set foot in Indiana, the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office claimed the cash was tied to criminal activity without specifying which crime was being committed. The Institute for Justice is representing the couple in a lawsuit against the government to retrieve the funds.

These are only a few examples of a widespread practice that would be considered armed robbery if it were done by everyday civilians. The fact of the matter is that civil asset forfeiture is robbery, especially when there are no charges, convictions, or even due process.

“Rebel Ridge” does a masterful job of illustrating just how serious this issue is. When watching that first scene, those who are unfamiliar might think it is being exaggerated. But it is not. What happened to the main character in the film is what happens to Americans across the country who do not have the resources to fight against it. This is why several states have passed legislation reforming civil asset forfeiture, requiring a conviction or due process before property can be seized.

I would highly recommend watching “Rebel Ridge,” not just because it brings a serious issue to light but because it’s also a damn fun revenge flick reminiscent of The Rock’s “Walking Tall.” The characters are engaging, and the action scenes are thrilling, even if some of the occurrences are predictable. Hopefully, this film will open even more eyes and bring about more resistance to how civil asset forfeiture is being practiced today.