The U.S. Department of Justice is indicting an American for allegedly providing U.S. border officials with a passcode to erase the contents of his cell phone, according to an indictment and media reports.
This is believed to be the first known case in the United States in which federal prosecutors have charged someone with data destruction using so-called “duress” passwords built into cell phone software.
Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick is contesting the charges, according to the Guardian, which reported the story earlier this week following Monday's first court hearing. Tunick's lawyers said the seizure of Tunick's cell phone by U.S. Customs and Border Protection when he returned to the United States last year was illegal and that all evidence, including the alleged erasure of the phone, should be destroyed.
The lawsuit centers on features included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of software on the latest Google Pixel devices. Tunick's lawyer acknowledged that Graphene OS was running on his phone.
This software feature allows a device owner to set a passcode that intentionally erases the contents of that device if entered in place of the user's unlock passcode.
Mr. Tunick's case also raises continuing questions about what constitutional rights can be exercised at the border, although the U.S. government has long maintained that the border is not U.S. territory until entry is granted.
The government's indictment, which includes a typo (“U.S. law”), accuses Tunick of providing a passcode to border officials before the device was seized, which caused the phone to “delete its digital content.”
Tunick's lawyer filed a motion to destroy evidence, arguing that the detention and seizure were illegal. The motion says U.S. border officials took Tunick for secondary screening at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Airport after returning from overseas on January 24, 2025, but he was repeatedly denied access to a lawyer and was not informed of his legal rights.
Tunick's lawyers accused the government of using the excuse of a child exploitation image search to request access to Tunick's cell phone, but without providing any evidence to justify the allegations. His motion to suppress asserted that the government was investigating him on his behalf over his involvement with Save Atlanta's Forests, a long-running environmental movement that opposes the development of a vast training campus for law enforcement in Atlanta known as “Cop City.”
According to the motion, border officials argued that they did not need a warrant to search Tunick's cellphone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border. The U.S. government has long maintained that it can search and seize people's devices without a search warrant or court order until they are allowed to enter the United States.
When Tunick provided a passcode and authorities entered it, “the screen went blank, blinked a few times, and the phone appeared to restart.” Officials seized his phone anyway, and then told him he was free to enter the United States.
Prosecutors later charged Mr. Tunick under a federal law that makes it illegal to intentionally destroy or damage property to prevent it from being seized by authorities. Mr. Tunick has pleaded not guilty.
Matthew Dodge, an assistant federal public defender for Tunick's defense team, told TechCrunch that it's incredibly rare to see federal law used in a prosecution.
Security experts also said they had never seen accusations like this before.
Bill Buddington, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Luna Sandvik, a digital security expert who works to protect people at risk as the founder of security consulting firm Granite, told TechCrunch that they have not seen any similar incidents involving the use of forced passwords.
“I've been discussing potential scenarios with activists and journalists for years, and I've never seen anything like this before,” Sandvik said. “I think this incident is a reminder that authorities can claim that you intentionally destroyed data, so it's better not to have that data when you cross certain borders.”
“With a little planning in advance, you can download the data you need whenever you arrive at your destination,” says Sandvik.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a guide explaining how to protect your data and security at U.S. borders and what rights you have.
The Atlanta federal court overseeing the case is expected to rule on Tunick's suppression claims later this year. A Department of Justice spokesperson did not respond to TechCrunch's request for comment.
Updated to correct spelling of last name in 15th paragraph.
If you buy through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This does not affect editorial independence.