Activist Charged After Duress Passcode Wiped Phone at Border

Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta activist, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2232 after he allegedly entered a duress passcode that wiped his phone during a warrantless Customs and Border Protection search at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport on Jan. 24, 2025.

Federal prosecutors allege Tunick provided a code that caused the device to delete its digital contents before agents seized it. The indictment charges him with knowingly destroying property to prevent its seizure by law enforcement, a crime under the rarely used statute cited in the complaint.

Tunick was pulled into a secondary inspection room as he returned from the Dominican Republic, court filings say. Agents asked to inspect his phone without a warrant under the border search exception, which allows Customs and Border Protection to examine electronic devices at ports of entry. Tunick’s lawyers say he was denied a lawyer and was not read Miranda warnings.

When he entered the code, filings state, “the screen went blank, flashed several times, and the phone appeared to restart.” Agents seized the device and released him into the country shortly afterward. Tunick has pleaded not guilty.

The passcode at issue is a duress or secondary code built into GrapheneOS, a privacy-hardened version of Android made for Google Pixel phones. When the duress code is entered, the operating system deletes the device’s encryption keys, rendering stored data unreadable and returning the phone to a factory-like state. GrapheneOS added the duress option in June 2024; developers described it as a protection for users who might be forced to unlock devices.

GrapheneOS is used by journalists, activists and security researchers. Its design and encryption have affected prior legal efforts to access data on certain devices. Advocacy groups publish guidance on device rights at the U.S. border and recommend privacy tools for travelers.

Customs and Border Protection maintains authority to inspect electronic devices at ports of entry without a warrant. Defense attorneys for Tunick argue that demanding access to the phone without counsel or other safeguards violated his constitutional rights and that the duress code functioned as a protective measure.

The indictment centers on whether entering a code that erases a device constitutes unlawful destruction of property to prevent seizure. Tunick faces potential prison time if convicted. A federal judge is expected to rule on his motion to suppress evidence no earlier than the end of October, a hearing that will address whether the materials seized during the inspection can be used at trial.