Atlanta activist charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta-based environmental activist, faces federal felony charges after his GrapheneOS phone was wiped during a Customs and Border Protection search at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on January 24, 2025. Tunick was returning from the Dominican Republic when agents detained him for secondary screening. According to court filings, federal authorities had placed him on a terrorism watchlist related to his involvement with protests against Cop City, a $109 million police training facility in Atlanta, though agents cited child sexual abuse material as the stated reason for the device search.

During questioning, Tunick requested legal counsel multiple times but was denied access to a lawyer, according to his defense team. Agents repeatedly demanded his phone's passcode, warning they would seize the device if he refused. When Tunick provided a code, the phone displayed a blank screen, flashed several times, and restarted—triggering a duress password feature built into GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android operating system designed for Google Pixel phones. The duress password irreversibly wipes a device when activated. Prosecutors argue in their November 2024 indictment that Tunick intentionally destroyed property to prevent its seizure by authorities, citing federal law prohibiting the knowing destruction of property to impair government seizure. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison.

Tunick's defense team contends the search violated his constitutional rights, arguing no warrant was presented, he was not read his Miranda rights, and the stated reason for the search was a pretext for investigating his activism related to the Defend the Atlanta Forest protest movement. They filed a motion to suppress evidence based on these alleged violations, with a ruling not expected until late October 2026. The case marks the first known prosecution involving GrapheneOS's duress password feature. Privacy experts and the GrapheneOS Foundation have expressed concern about the precedent. Christophe Boutry, a cybersecurity expert, stated the prosecution "sends the message that [GrapheneOS] is criminal by default." The GrapheneOS Foundation has defended the operating system as "completely legal" and argued that any law attempting to restrict its security features would be unconstitutional.

The incident occurs amid broader debate over privacy rights and border search authority. Federal courts have issued conflicting rulings on whether CBP agents require warrants to search devices at ports of entry. CBP claims constitutional protections do not apply at borders, while some federal judges have ruled that manual and forensic device searches require warrants. Tunick's case has resonated across privacy and civil liberties circles, with supporters arguing that the prosecution aims to intimidate activists and ordinary citizens from protecting their data.