Get more about the Training and Register.
Registration for PCI DSS: https://t.co/5k2iAcJzu8
Registration for Digital Forensics and Investigations: https://t.co/Dd0rigY9Bx
The defendant is Samuel “Sam” Tunick, a US citizen stopped at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport on 24 January 2025 after returning from the Dominican Republic. Agents repeatedly demanded access to his Google Pixel phone and reportedly told him they would seize it if he refused.
He eventually supplied a passcode; when agents entered it, the GrapheneOS duress-password feature allegedly triggered an irreversible wipe. (The Guardian)
The DOJ’s allegation is not simply that he owned GrapheneOS. Prosecutors claim he intentionally supplied the duress password to prevent the government from seizing the phone’s digital contents.
He was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a), which prohibits knowingly destroying or taking action against property to prevent or impair a lawful government seizure. The offence carries up to five years’ imprisonment.
However, he has not been convicted. His lawyers argue that the airport detention, interrogation and attempted phone search were unlawful: they say agents had no warrant, denied repeated requests for counsel and used unrelated allegations as a pretext to investigate his connections to the “Stop Cop City” movement.
The government argues that ordinary border-search authority applied because he had not yet formally entered the country.
The fascinating legal issue is the word “lawful” in §2232. Prosecutors must establish that the government had lawful authority to take control of the property. The defence is therefore challenging the underlying border search and asking the court to suppress the evidence.
This may become the first major US case testing whether activating or causing officers to activate a smartphone duress-wipe mechanism can itself constitute destruction of property to prevent seizure.