Samuel Tunick Charged for Using Duress Password to Erase Phone at US Border
The U.S. Department of Justice has indicted Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick for allegedly providing a duress password that wiped his phone during a border inspection in January 2025 at Hartsfield‑Jackson airport. Tunick’s device was running GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system for Google Pixel phones that includes a duress‑PIN feature which erases all data when entered.
Prosecutors claim the act constitutes destruction of evidence to prevent the seizure of the phone, while his attorneys argue the seizure was unlawful because border agents lacked a warrant, denied him access to counsel, and used the pretext of searching for child‑exploitation material. The case is the first known U.S. prosecution over the use of a duress password, prompting privacy experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and digital‑security consultant Runa Sandvik to note that no similar cases have been seen. It raises constitutional questions about the scope of privacy rights at U.S. borders.
Entities: Google Pixel · GrapheneOS · Samuel Tunick · U.S. Customs and Border Protection · U.S. Department of Justice
Claims
What the coverage asserts, and how well corroborated each claim is across sources.
- [● 4 SOURCES] Tunick’s phone was running GrapheneOS, a custom Android OS that includes a duress‑PIN feature that erases data when entered. (technology description)
- [● 2 SOURCES] The incident occurred in January 2025 at Atlanta’s Hartsfield‑Jackson airport after Tunick returned from overseas. (court documents and news reports)
- [● 2 SOURCES] This is the first known U.S. case prosecuting someone for using a duress password to destroy data. (legal analysis)
- [● 3 SOURCES] Prosecutors allege Tunick destroyed evidence to prevent the seizure of his phone. (indictment)
- [● 5 SOURCES] The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Samuel Tunick for providing a duress password that wiped his phone at a border inspection. (US DOJ indictment)
- [○ 1 SOURCE] Defense argues the seizure was unlawful because agents lacked a warrant and denied Tunick access to an attorney. (defense motion)
- [○ 1 SOURCE] Experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and security consultant Runa Sandvik have not seen similar cases involving duress passwords. (expert commentary)
- [● 2 SOURCES] The case raises constitutional questions about privacy rights at U.S. borders. (legal commentary)