US prosecutors are charging Atlanta activist Samuel Tunick after his phone was wiped during a border search. The case has raised questions about phone privacy and government searches.
Tunick returned to the United States from the Dominican Republic on January 24, 2025. Customs and Border Protection agents stopped him at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
According to The Verge, agents took Tunick for additional questioning. They asked him to provide access to his Google Pixel phone.
The phone used GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused version of Android. The software includes a feature that can erase the phone when someone enters a special password.
Court records described by The Verge say the phone screen went blank after Tunick provided a password. The device then appeared to restart, and its stored data became inaccessible.
Prosecutors say Tunick used GrapheneOS’s duress feature to erase his phone before authorities could take it. They are charging him under a federal law involving the destruction of property.
Prosecutors bring rare federal charge
The US government is using 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) in the case. The law makes it illegal to knowingly destroy or damage property to prevent authorities from taking it.
PrivacySavvy’s extensive research concludes that Tunick used the phone’s duress password during the airport search. The feature does not unlock the phone like a normal password. Instead, it triggers an immediate and permanent data wipe.
GrapheneOS designed the option for situations where someone may face pressure to unlock their device. The feature gives users a way to protect private data if someone forces them to provide access.
Ars Technica reported that the phone’s data disappeared after an agent entered the password. Authorities still took the phone after the wipe. The government argues that Tunick used the feature to stop officials from taking the data on his phone. The case therefore focuses on whether using such a security feature can amount to illegal destruction of property.
Tunick’s lawyers have challenged the search and the events that led to the phone seizure. They argue that authorities did not follow proper legal steps during the questioning. According to The Verge, his lawyers say agents refused to let him speak with a lawyer.
They also argue that agents did not show him a warrant. The defence further claims that authorities questioned Tunick about child sexual abuse material as a reason to access his phone.
His lawyers say the questioning was instead linked to his connections with Atlanta’s Stop Cop City protest movement. The government has defended the border search.
Prosecutors argue that authorities have wider powers to search travellers and their belongings before they enter the United States. The case highlights ongoing tensions around government surveillance and security. The FBI is also investigating a possible hack of its surveillance systems.
GrapheneOS defends its security model
GrapheneOS has defended its wider security system following the case. The project says the duress feature is only one part of its approach to protecting user data.
The software focuses on stronger privacy and security for supported Google Pixel phones. It includes protections designed to make it harder for attackers to access information stored on a device.
The duress password works differently from the normal password used to unlock a phone. A user can set a separate code that triggers a complete wipe instead. Android Authority explained that the feature aims to help users who may be forced to unlock their phones.
Privacy feature now in the spotlight – what’s next?
The case has now placed that privacy feature at the centre of a federal prosecution. It also raises a legal question about what happens when security software removes data during a government search.
Tunick’s lawyers are challenging the legality of the airport detention and phone search. They want evidence connected to the search excluded from the case.
The government maintains that border authorities did not need a warrant because Tunick had not yet formally entered the United States. The Verge reported that the court is considering the arguments from both sides.
The case remains ongoing, and no final court ruling has been made on whether using the GrapheneOS feature broke federal law. The outcome could clarify how US law treats phone security features during border searches.
For now, the case puts a common privacy concern into a legal fight. Users can protect their data with security tools, but authorities may still challenge how those tools work during investigations.
