Federal Prosecution Over Phone Wipe Highlights Border Search Powers

Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, was stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers during a secondary inspection at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport after returning from the Dominican Republic in January 2025. When asked to unlock his Google Pixel phone, Tunick entered a “duress password” that automatically erased the device’s contents. Prosecutors subsequently charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a)—the statute that criminalizes destroying property to impede lawful seizure—an offense punishable by up to five years in prison. Tunick has pleaded not guilty and argues that the search was unlawful.

Newsweek

CBP asserts that all travelers crossing U.S. ports of entry are subject to inspection, and electronic devices are treated like other belongings. Under current policy, officers may conduct a basic, warrant-less review of locally stored data. More intrusive “advanced” searches—requiring external forensic tools—demand reasonable suspicion of a law violation or national-security concern and supervisory approval. CBP estimates that fewer than 0.01 percent of international arrivals undergo device searches in fiscal year 2025.

Newsweek

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) contend that smartphones contain far more personal information than traditional luggage and therefore merit heightened constitutional protection. The ACLU’s website argues that Fourth-Amendment protections “don’t apply at the border” is a claim the organization “takes issue with,” especially for devices that store detailed records of conversations, locations, and web activity.

Newsweek

• “The physical device itself can indeed be seized by law enforcement. It's not 'speech' in the way that your words are. The speech part, the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, comes into play when they try to compel you to unlock it or provide a passcode, which is essentially testimonial,” — Sean Callagy, attorney and co-founder of ACTi AI

Newsweek

• “Your digital life isn't a diary you get to burn the second someone knocks on the door. Attempting to erase digital footprints during an investigation isn't just a misstep,” — Sean Callagy, attorney and co-founder of ACTi AI

Newsweek

• “The critical distinction lies in the content: while they can take the device, compelling you to unlock it or provide a passcode engages Fifth Amendment self-incrimination protections, though this is a rapidly evolving area of law, and these powers must still be exercised without discriminatory profiling,” — Sean Callagy, attorney and co-founder of ACTi AI

Newsweek

The case is poised to proceed through federal court, where judges will evaluate whether activating a privacy-focused “duress password” constitutes obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a). A ruling could clarify the extent to which border agents may compel access to encrypted devices and whether the use of security features designed to protect digital privacy can trigger criminal liability.

Newsweek