The U.S. Department of Justice has charged Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick after his smartphone automatically wiped all of its data during a border inspection. Prosecutors allege that he deliberately used a special GrapheneOS feature to prevent authorities from seizing the device, while his defense argues that the border officers’ actions were unlawful from the outset.
The incident took place in January 2025 after Tunick returned to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. When U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers attempted to seize his Google Pixel smartphone, he entered a special “duress password” available in GrapheneOS instead of his regular unlock code.
GrapheneOS is an alternative Android operating system for Google Pixel devices designed with a strong focus on privacy and security. One of its features allows users to configure a duress password that instantly wipes all data from the device instead of unlocking it.
According to prosecutors, that is exactly what happened during the border inspection. The indictment alleges that Tunick intentionally erased the phone’s contents to prevent the government from taking control of the device.
“The defendant knowingly destroyed, damaged, deleted, or otherwise disposed of the digital contents of a Google Pixel mobile phone for the purpose of preventing the lawful seizure of that property by the government,” the indictment states.
The case is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States. However, Tunick and his legal team strongly dispute the charges, arguing that the attempted seizure of the phone itself was unlawful.
His attorneys have also filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming that Tunick was repeatedly denied access to legal counsel and was not informed of his constitutional rights during questioning.
“Because officers violated Mr. Tunick’s constitutional rights during the interrogation, any evidence obtained from his phone, or the absence of such evidence, must be excluded as the product of unlawful government conduct,” his attorneys argued.
The defense further claims that authorities targeted Tunick because of his ties to the environmental activist group Defend the Atlanta Forest, which opposes the construction of the large police training facility commonly known as Cop City.
According to the defense, border agents also argued they did not need a warrant to search the phone because Tunick had not yet been formally admitted into the United States. The federal government has long maintained that electronic devices may be searched without a warrant during border inspections.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, rely on a little-known federal law that makes it a crime to intentionally destroy property in order to prevent its lawful seizure by the government.
They also point to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which held that border officers may search travelers’ phones without a warrant, reasoning that electronic device inspections are legally comparable to searches of luggage.
Privacy advocates strongly disagree with that interpretation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues that smartphones contain vastly more personal information than a suitcase and therefore should receive much stronger constitutional protections during border searches.
The outcome of the case could set an important legal precedent for future smartphone searches at U.S. borders and determine whether users may lawfully rely on automatic data-wiping features to protect their privacy.
