Man’s Phone Wiped After Giving Passcode to Border Agents, Faces Federal Charges

Man Faces Prison for Using “Duress” Password on Phone

An Atlanta resident, Samuel Tunick, is facing potential prison time for activating a “duress password” on his smartphone during a border search at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The charge stems from a rarely invoked federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2232, which prohibits the destruction of property to prevent its seizure by authorities.

The incident occurred on January 24, 2025, when Tunick was subjected to a warrantless search as he returned from the Dominican Republic. According to reports, this marks the first known criminal prosecution in the United States involving the use of such a password feature.

The Function of a Duress Password

A duress password is a secondary unlock code designed to protect a device’s data when its owner is compelled to hand it over. Unlike a standard passcode, entering the duress code triggers an immediate and irreversible wipe of the device. This process deletes the encryption keys, rendering the phone’s data unreadable and restoring it to its factory settings.

The feature is available on GrapheneOS, a security-focused version of Android developed exclusively for Google Pixel phones. GrapheneOS is favored by journalists, activists, and security researchers, and has gained attention from figures like Edward Snowden, who has publicly stated he uses it daily. The operating system introduced the duress PIN in June 2024, specifically to address scenarios where individuals are physically forced to relinquish their devices.

Legal Precedent and Tunick’s Defense

This is not the first time privacy-focused operating systems have surfaced in legal disputes. In 2023, courts grappled with the limitations of smartphone surveillance when devices running systems like GrapheneOS proved resistant to court-ordered monitoring software.

Tunick’s legal team asserts that a similar situation unfolded at the airport. They claim that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents directed Tunick to a secondary inspection area and demanded access to his phone without a warrant, citing the “border search exception” to the Fourth Amendment. His attorneys also stated that Tunick was denied legal counsel and was not read his Miranda rights.

Court filings indicate that upon providing a passcode, Tunick’s phone screen went blank, flashed, and appeared to restart. CBP agents confiscated the device and subsequently released him. The government’s indictment alleges that Tunick provided a passcode that resulted in the deletion of the phone’s digital contents before it was seized.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers resources on individuals’ device rights at the U.S. border, as part of a broader movement promoting privacy-first technologies. Tunick has pleaded not guilty to the charges. A federal judge is expected to rule on his motion to suppress evidence no earlier than the end of October.