US Citizen Charged for Using Duress Password to Wipe Phone at Atlanta Airport

On January 24, 2025, federal agents detained Sam Tunick, a U.S. citizen, at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. When officers attempted to seize his device, Tunick entered a “duress password” that triggered a wipe of the phone’s data. Prosecutors have filed charges under a rarely-used statute that criminalizes the destruction or damage of property to prevent seizure.

The Verge

The statute invoked by the government makes it illegal to destroy or damage property with the intent of thwarting law-enforcement seizure. Prosecutors allege Tunick employed a privacy-focused feature of GrapheneOS—a mobile operating system that allows a secondary password to erase data instantly. The government contends that a warrant was unnecessary because Tunick had not yet been granted permission to enter the United States, a claim rooted in immigration-related enforcement policy.

The Verge

• Government position: Federal officials assert that Tunick deliberately used the duress password to obstruct a lawful investigation into alleged child-exploitation images, and therefore violated the anti-destruction statute. They maintain that the lack of a warrant is justified by Tunick’s pending entry status.

The Verge

• Defense argument: Tunick’s attorneys argue that the airport detention and subsequent seizure were unlawful. They claim agents denied Tunick access to counsel, failed to produce a warrant, and pursued the phone under false pretenses, seeking to “fish” for connections to the Stop Cop City movement. The defense requests that all evidence obtained from the phone be suppressed.

The Verge

The case pits emerging privacy-enhancing technologies against longstanding law-enforcement practices. A conviction could set a precedent that limits the use of duress passwords and similar safeguards, potentially chilling the adoption of security-focused operating systems. Conversely, a dismissal might reinforce legal protections for digital privacy and challenge the scope of the anti-destruction statute in the context of electronic devices.

The Verge