CBP Phone Searches: US Citizens' Rights as Man Charged Over Device Wiping

0 Share Newsweek is a Trust Project member See more of our trusted coverage when you search. Prefer Newsweek on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search. A new federal prosecution is drawing attention to one of the most controversial powers exercised by U.S. border authorities: the ability to search travelers' phones without a warrant.

Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick was charged after prosecutors alleged he provided U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents with a passcode that wiped the contents of his Google Pixel phone during an airport inspection.

Now the unusual prosecution is raising questions about what rights U.S. citizens have when border agents ask to search electronic devices and whether using privacy-focused security features can itself lead to criminal liability.

Newsweek reached out to CBP via email for comment.

Americans carry vast amounts of personal information on their phones, from private messages and photos to location histories, work documents, and financial records.

Yet courts have long recognized a "border search exception" that gives customs officials broader search powers at ports of entry than law enforcement normally possesses inside the United States. The Tunick case could become a significant test of those powers. If the prosecution is successful, it could chill the use of security tools designed to protect citizens.

Tunick was returning to Atlanta from the Dominican Republic in January 2025 when he was stopped by CBP officers for secondary inspection at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Authorities allegedly requested access to his phone. When a passcode was entered, the device reportedly restarted, and its contents were erased.

Prosecutors subsequently charged Tunick under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a), a federal law that makes it a crime to destroy or dispose of property to prevent authorities from lawfully taking custody of it. The charge carries a potential prison sentence of up to five years.

Tunick has pleaded not guilty, but now a larger debate has centered around GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused mobile operating system available on Google Pixel devices.

One of its features allows users to create a "duress password" that wipes the device if entered instead of the regular unlock code. The feature is intended for people who fear being compelled to unlock their devices under pressure.

Tunick's attorneys argue the search itself was unlawful and have sought to suppress evidence in the case. They say he was denied access to an attorney, was not advised of his rights and was questioned about matters unrelated to border security.

However, federal officials dispute this, describing the encounter as a routine border inspection.

“I have not seen this before, though I've discussed the potential scenario with activists and journalists over the years," Runa Sandvik, founder of security consultancy Granitt, told Yahoo News.

CBP has said that all travelers crossing the U.S. border are subject to inspection and that electronic devices are no different from other belongings being brought into the country. The agency said phone and laptop searches are conducted only in a tiny fraction of international arrivals, with fewer than 0.01 percent of travelers subject to device searches in fiscal year 2025.

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for protecting our nation’s borders and enforcing numerous laws at U.S. ports of entry,” CBP said on its website. “CBP’s ability to lawfully inspect electronic devices crossing the border is integral to keeping America safe in an increasingly digital world.”

Under current CBP policy, officers can conduct a basic search of a device without a warrant. This generally involves manually reviewing information stored locally on a phone, laptop or tablet.

More intrusive advanced searches, which may involve connecting the device to external equipment or forensic tools, would require reasonable suspicion of a law violation or a national security concern and supervisory approval.

U.S. citizens have a crucial protection that noncitizens do not: they cannot generally be denied reentry simply for refusing to unlock a device. That does not mean refusing has no consequences, however.

According to the most recent legal guidance, agents may seize a device, subject a traveler to additional questioning or hold electronics for further examination if the traveler declines to provide access. Any challenge to the legality of the search would typically occur later in court.

However, multiple privacy organizations, including the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation, have argued that modern smartphones contain such extensive personal information that they deserve stronger constitutional protection than traditional luggage searches.

“The government has long claimed that Fourth Amendment protections prohibiting warrantless searches don’t apply at the border. The American Civil Liberties Union takes issue with this position generally, especially when it comes to electronic devices like smartphones and laptops,” the ACLU wrote on its website.

“Our smartphones store detailed accounts of our conversations, professional lives, whereabouts, and web-browsing habits. They paint a far more detailed picture of our private lives than, say, a piece of luggage.”

Privacy experts generally recommend planning ahead rather than making decisions under pressure at an airport.

Travelers carrying sensitive information should minimize the data stored on devices before crossing borders. They should also understand what information is accessible from the cloud versus stored locally.

However, the Tunick case has sparked a new legal question: whether activating a security feature that erases data could be interpreted by prosecutors as destruction of evidence if authorities were attempting to seize the device.

“It’s concerning – and sends the message that [GrapheneOS] is criminal by default,” Christophe Boutry, a cybe...

Indexed and credited by AIPROPX. Originating outlet: Newsweek. Open at source →