Activist charged with felony after giving border agent “duress code” that wiped his phone
Atlanta activist Samuel Tunick has been charged with a federal felony after wiping his phone during a border search in early 2025, in what appears to be a novel use of a law against destroying property to prevent its seizure. Tunick, involved with the "Defend the Atlanta Forest" group opposing the "Cop City" police training facility, was stopped by Customs and Border Protection agents who threatened to confiscate his phone unless he unlocked it; instead, he gave them a "duress code" from his phone's privacy-focused GrapheneOS software, which permanently erased all data. His lawyers argue he was deliberately targeted over his activism rather than subjected to a routine check, and are seeking to have the evidence suppressed.
According to court documents, CBP had allegedly flagged Tunick for "suspected terrorism activities" linked to his activism before he landed, though agents told him during questioning they were searching for child abuse material. GrapheneOS, which runs only on Google Pixel 6 and later devices, offers a duress code feature that irreversibly wipes all data and eSIMs when entered instead of the normal unlock code; agents confiscated the phone anyway despite it being wiped. Prosecutors are using a rarely invoked statute barring the destruction of property to prevent seizure, a legal approach that privacy experts at the EFF say they have never seen applied this way before; Tunick faces up to five years in prison if convicted.
In short
- Activist wiped his phone using GrapheneOS's duress code at the US border
- DOJ charged him under a rarely used property-destruction statute
- Lawyers say he was targeted for activism against Atlanta's "Cop City" facility
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Customs officers possess lawful authority to conduct border searches, and deliberately destroying data when asked for access impedes legitimate investigations and law enforcement operations. The duress code, whilst a privacy feature, was instrumentalised here to circumvent seizure in apparent violation of laws prohibiting destruction of property specifically to prevent such searches. Allowing systematic evidence destruction at borders would substantially compromise security capabilities and investigative effectiveness.
The case against
The duress code is a standard security feature designed to protect privacy under coercion, not an obstruction tool, and prosecuting its use sets the troubling precedent that ordinary digital defences become criminal at borders. Tunick was flagged for activism-related "suspected terrorism" yet questioned about CSAM, suggesting pretextual targeting of political speech rather than routine security. Criminalising built-in device protections would effectively prohibit legitimate privacy tools and disproportionately chill activism, journalism, and vulnerable populations.
Explained simply
Samuel Tunick is an Atlanta-based activist who works with a group opposing Cop City, a proposed police training facility. In early 2025, he was stopped by US border agents who demanded access to his phone.
When the agents insisted he unlock his phone or face confiscation, Tunick used a special feature built into his phone's privacy software that erases all data instead of opening the device normally. The agents received only an erased phone, yet he now faces prosecution under a rarely used law against destroying property to prevent seizure.
The case is significant because privacy experts say this legal approach has never been applied in this way before. It raises broader questions about how authorities should handle activists' phones at borders and what rights people have to protect their digital privacy.