- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Man charged for wiping his phone with "duress password" during airport search
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:30 pm
LINK
quote:
The U.S. Justice Department is prosecuting an American for allegedly providing U.S. border authorities with a passcode that wiped the contents of his phone, according to an indictment and media reports.
This is thought to be the first known case in the United States where federal prosecutors have charged someone for the alleged destruction of data using a “duress” password built into a phone’s software.
quote:
Tunick’s attorneys accused the government of demanding access to his phone under the pretext of searching for child exploitation imagery, but without providing evidence to justify its suspicion. His motion to suppress argued that the government was instead investigating him over his association with a long-running environmental movement called Defend the Atlanta Forest, which opposes the development of a sprawling training campus for law enforcement in Atlanta dubbed “Cop City.”
The motion said that the border agents claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border. The U.S. government has long claimed it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are permitted entry to the United States.
quote:
Prosecutors later charged Tunick under a federal statute that makes it unlawful to knowingly destroy or damage property to prevent authorities from seizing it. Tunick has pleaded not guilty.
18
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:33 pm to Ingeniero
If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t have a problem with the government accessing your phone upon demand.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:34 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
an American for allegedly providing U.S. border authorities with a passcode that wiped the contents of his phone
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:35 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t have a problem with the government accessing your phone upon demand
How them leather boots taste?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:35 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t have a problem with the government accessing your phone upon demand.
Oh they kill you last.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:35 pm to Ingeniero
I did this when my wife asked for my phone code and she was not happy
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:37 pm to fightin tigers
I think that was a troll. This guy has had UK goons arrest him for no reason at all and he somehow had his system lock everything down when it happend.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. 
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:38 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
The auto-reboot feature is on by default and set to 18 hours.
If no correct PIN is entered, the phone reboots. Works flawlessly.
An 18hr window to extract keys from the RAM is already a nightmare, esp since it's never been done on Graphene—even had they known what device it was
Good way to get around the intent portion of the criminal laws that require it
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:39 pm to Ingeniero
quote:Is this correct or incorrect?
The motion said that the border agents claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border. The U.S. government has long claimed it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are permitted entry to the United States.
Can the government seize the devices of people prior to entry into the USA?
What would make this situation any different than the search of anything else that is entering the USA? A warrant isn’t generally needed for the search of physical objects that are entering the USA.
It is a new era of digital vs physical.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:39 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
under the pretext of searching for child exploitation imagery
Either he’s a sick perv, or the government is trying to set him up.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:42 pm to fightin tigers
quote:How is this different than, say, a general search of imports for contraband?
How them leather boots taste?
I am being honest here, this seems like a new unanswered situation.
How is digital different from physical?
Would it be different if it wasn’t an American citizen?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:45 pm to Scruffy
quote:
How is this different than, say, a general search of imports for contraband?
It isn't in my opinion.
How can they charge him with no contraband?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:47 pm to fightin tigers
quote:That is my same general view.
It isn't in my opinion.
quote:Well, wouldn’t it be similar to a destruction of evidence charge?
How can they charge him with no contraband?
Are they charging him with a “possessing CP” charge?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:49 pm to Ingeniero
Burner flip phone FTW
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:52 pm to Scruffy
quote:
How is this different than, say, a general search of imports for contraband?
I am being honest here, this seems like a new unanswered situation.
How is digital different from physical?
I do think it's different, but I don't know that I have a valid legal argument for it. I don't even know that this has been explored before, like you said. In my opinion, a physical search of things you're carrying is different than demanding access to your personal device.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:52 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Are they charging him with a “possessing CP” charge?
It doesn't appear that way. That seems to be the ruse to get PC/RS to demand the device.
He's being charged for, essentially, and obstruction-type charge relating to him allegedly destroying what they were trying to seize.
The reason the rules are different is a bullshite, judicially-created exception to the 4th Amendment based on location to the border. Anyone who's ever driven too far south in TX knows this, too well.
US v. Castillo is the 5th Circuit case
quote:
In United States v. Castillo (2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that border officers do not need a warrant or individualized reasonable suspicion to conduct a routine manual search of a cell phone
Apparently the 4th Circuit just issued a similar opinion in late July
quote:
The Fourth Circuit issued a disappointing opinion in U.S. v. Belmonte Cardozo, a case in which EFF filed an amicus brief, alongside the national ACLU, its Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia affiliates, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).
We argued that electronic device searches at the border should require a warrant based on probable cause, but at minimum, regardless of whether an officer searches by hand or with forensic software that plugs into a device and downloads its entire contents for search, the same Fourth Amendment standard should apply to all device searches at the border.
Unfortunately, the court rejected that argument and ruled that a lower standard applies to manual searches, allowing the government to conduct extraordinarily invasive electronic device searches without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply because the border officer chooses to search by hand rather than with a forensic tool.
This post was edited on 7/26/26 at 7:54 pm
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:52 pm to Scruffy
quote:
How is digital different from physical?
Digital doesn't give a shite about borders, right? If there were files on his phone they could be backed up on a cloud server somewhere accessible from anywhere.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:54 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Well, wouldn’t it be similar to a destruction of evidence charge? Are they charging him with a “possessing CP” charge?
But how can they charge him essentially for destroying evidence of a crime if there is no proof that a crime occurred?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:57 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
But how can they charge him essentially for destroying evidence of a crime if there is no proof that a crime occurred?
Obstruction-related charges survive even if the predicate no longer exists. It's a completely separate crime.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 7:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
How can they prove intent in this scenario? They are the ones that entered the password right?
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News