The US accuses an American of wiping his phone using a “coerced” password during a border search

The US Department of Justice is prosecuting a US citizen on charges that he provided US border authorities with a passcode that erased the contents of his phone, according to the indictment and media reports.

This is believed to be the first known case in the United States where federal prosecutors have charged someone with the alleged destruction of data using a so-called “coerced” password embedded in the phone’s software.

According to The Guardian, which covered the story earlier this week after Monday’s first court hearing, Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick is fighting the charges. Tunick’s lawyers said it was illegal for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to confiscate his phone upon his return to the United States last year, and any evidence — including the alleged scanning of his phone — should be discarded.

The case centers around a feature built into GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software found on most recent Google Pixel devices. Tunick’s lawyers confirmed that GrapheneOS was running on his phone.

A software feature allows a device owner to set a passcode that intentionally erases the contents of that device if entered in place of the user’s unlock passcode.

Tunick’s case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long maintained is not American territory until a person is allowed entry.

The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“US Code”), accuses Tunick of providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete digital contents,” before the device was seized.

Tunick’s attorneys filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming the detention and seizure were unlawful. The motion said U.S. border authorities took Tunick to a secondary inspection at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson Airport while returning from abroad on Jan. 24, 2025, but he was repeatedly denied access to an attorney and not informed of his legal rights.

Tunick’s lawyers accused the government of demanding access to his phone on the pretext of searching for images of child exploitation, but without providing evidence to justify its suspicions. His motion to suppress argued that the government was instead investigating him over his association with a long-standing environmental movement called Defend Atlanta’s Forest, which opposes the development of a sprawling law enforcement training campus in Atlanta dubbed “Cop City.”

Border agents claimed they did not need a search warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border, the motion said. The US government has long claimed that it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are allowed into the United States.

When Tunick provided his passcode and authorities entered it, “the screen disappeared, flashed several times and the phone appeared to reboot.” The authorities confiscated his phone anyway, before telling him he was free to go and could enter the United States.

Prosecutors later charged Tunick under a federal law that makes it illegal to intentionally destroy or damage property to prevent authorities from seizing it. Tunick has pleaded not guilty.

Matthew Dodge, an assistant federal public defender on Tunick’s legal team, told TechCrunch that it is extremely rare to see federal law used in an indictment.

Security experts also said they had never seen charges made in this way before.

Bill Buddington, a senior technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Ronna Sandvik, a digital security expert who works to protect vulnerable people as founder of security consulting firm Granitt, told TechCrunch they had not seen similar cases involving the use of forced passwords.

“I have never seen this before, although I have discussed the possible scenario with activists and journalists over the years,” Sandvik said. “I think this case is a reminder that authorities may argue that you intentionally destroyed data, so it’s better not to have that data when crossing certain borders.”

“With a little advance planning, you can always download the data you need once you get where you want to go,” Sandvik said.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has guidance on how to protect your data and security at the US border, and explains what rights you have.

The Atlanta federal court overseeing the case is expected to rule on Tunick’s motion to suppress later this year. A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment.

Updated to correct spelling of surname in paragraph fifteen.