A Georgia man, Samuel Tunick, has been charged with a felony after allegedly using a "duress password" to wipe his phone while it was being searched by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP told Tunick, an activist connected to the Stop Cop City protests in Atlanta, that his device needed to be searched for child sexual abuse material, but his lawyers argue this was a pretext for investigating his activism. The case raises unresolved questions about whether travellers can legally protect their data during searches that are themselves of disputed legality.

According to a March motion to suppress evidence, Tunick did not consent to the search and repeatedly asked for a lawyer, but agents said no warrant was required; after he gave them his passcode, the phone's screen reportedly went blank and restarted, which prosecutors say indicates he used a GrapheneOS "duress password" to erase data. Legal clarity is lacking because appeals courts disagree: the Ninth Circuit has ruled biometric unlocking (fingerprint or face) is permissible while forced passcode disclosure is not, whereas the Fourth Circuit has held border agents can conduct manual phone searches without a warrant (though forensic searches still need one), and a separate circuit covering New England and Puerto Rico has allowed both manual and forensic searches without a warrant. This patchwork, combined with heightened device scrutiny since Donald Trump's return to office, leaves travellers uncertain of their rights at US borders.