The Tunick Case
A potential landmark legal case centered on privacy and security concerns is taking shape right now!
Security professionals and privacy advocates have long recommended a “duress password” to journalists, activists, and anyone who might be forced to unlock a device against their will: enter the wrong code and, instead of unlocking the phone, it wipes it. A federal prosecutor in Atlanta is now testing whether using this type of security product can itself be a crime.
What Happened
Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick was stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in January 2025 where agents seized his phone and asked for a passcode; according to the indictment (reported by TechCrunch). Tunick, described as an activist, felt this search was pretextual and without cause and used the duress pin. The screen went blank and flashed before the device restarted, consistent with a GrapheneOS duress wipe. Agents seized the device anyway and only afterward told Tunick he was free to enter the country.
Tunick was later charged under a federal statute covering destruction of property to prevent lawful seizure, the first known U.S. case of its kind (TechCrunch, The Guardian). His defense says the search itself was unlawful: agents allegedly denied his requests for a lawyer, skipped Miranda warnings, and had no warrant. That sounds a bit crazy, if you ask me. No Miranda rights, no lawyer?
Why It Matters Legally
Two things stand out, per TechCrunch’s reporting. Matthew Dodge, Tunick’s federal public defender, says it’s highly unusual for this destruction-of-evidence statute to be used this way at all, since a duress password doesn’t selectively destroy evidence, it behaves the same whether or not any wrongdoing is involved. And the case sits inside the “border search exception,” the long-standing government position that warrantless device searches are allowed until a traveler is formally admitted, even though Tunick is a U.S. citizen returning home. Wow, are a citizen’s rights suspended at passport control even though they are on US soil? That’s a scarry thought.
Expert Reaction, Including the EFF
Per TechCrunch, Bill Budington of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said he hadn’t seen a case like this before despite years of discussing the hypothetical with activists and journalists. Security expert Runa Sandvik echoed that and advised travelers to assume prosecutors may treat a wipe as intentional destruction, planning ahead by not carrying sensitive data across certain borders and downloading what’s needed after arrival. Beyond Budington’s comment, the EFF has not filed a formal statement or brief, though its long history in border-search litigation makes future involvement plausible.
The Bigger Question
If prosecutors succeed, using a privacy tool as designed could itself carry legal risk at the border, regardless of what’s actually on the device, a troubling prospect for journalists, attorneys, and privacy-conscious travelers generally. If Tunick’s suppression motion succeeds instead, it could reinforce limits on the border search exception for returning citizens. A ruling is expected later this year (per Guardian/TechCrunch reporting), and this case looks likely to shape how courts treat encryption and privacy tools at the border going forward.
Facts drawn from TechCrunch and Guardian reporting and court filings as of late July 2026; this is an ongoing case and details may change.