https://www.404media.co/man-charged-for-wiping-phone-before-cbp-could-search-it/
A man in Atlanta has been arrested and charged for allegedly deleting data from a Google Pixel phone before a member of a secretive Customs and Border Protection (CBP) unit was able to search it, according to court records and social media posts reviewed by 404 Media. The man, Samuel Tunick, is described as a local Atlanta activist in Instagram and other posts discussing the case. The exact circumstances around the search—such as why CBP wanted to search the phone in the first place—are not known. But it is uncommon to see someone charged specifically for wiping a phone, a feature that is easily accessible in some privacy and security-focused devices. 💡 Do you know anything else about this case? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co. The indictment says on January 24, Tunick “did knowingly destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, and otherwise take any action to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel cellular phone, for the purpose of preventing and impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take said property into its custody and control.” The indictment itself was filed in mid-November. Tunick was arrested earlier this month, according to a post on a crowd-funding site and court records. “Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta-based activist, Oberlin graduate, and beloved musician, was arrested by the DHS and FBI yesterday around 6pm EST. Tunick’s friends describe him as an approachable, empathetic person who is always finding ways to improve the lives of the people around him,” the site says. Various activists have since shared news of Tunick’s arrest on social media.
The indictment says the phone search was supposed to be performed by a supervisory officer from a CBP Tactical Terrorism Response Team. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in 2023 these are “highly secretive units deployed at U.S. ports of entry, which target, detain, search, and interrogate innocent travelers.” “These units, which may target travelers on the basis of officer ‘instincts.’ raise the risk that CBP is engaging in unlawful profiling or interfering with the First Amendment-protected activity of travelers,” the ACLU added. The Intercept previously covered the case of a sculptor and installation artist who was detained at San Francisco International Airport and had his phone searched. The report said Gach did not know why, even years later. Court records show authorities have since released Tunick, and that he is restricted from leaving the Northern District of Georgia as the case continues. The prosecutor listed on the docket did not respond to a request for comment. The docket did not list a lawyer representing Tunick.
The indictment does not say anything more than what is quoted. I am wondering if this is because he deleted the contents after being told it would be searched or something
Given that it says the phone was a Google Pixel, I’m guessing it was GrapheneOS and the activist entered their duress PIN before handing over the phone.
It should be noted for the record, if you ever have to use your duress code, do it before you hand the device over, don’t offer it up to them, and SHUT THE FUCK UP.
If you have time, turn the phone back on and you’ll get a “recovery” screen asking to do a factory reset. Select this and let it boot back to the setup screen then turn it off again. It’s now in a state where, if you remembered to shut the fuck up, they’ll have a much harder time proving that you destroyed evidence and didn’t just hand over a device you hadn’t setup yet, as is a somewhat common (good) practice with border crossings.
As with all things you may have to depend on, ideally you should test this flow. Carefully make a backup, verify the backup integrity, then use the duress pin ensuring that everything works the way you expected.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7oM0IB-IiM
Then they should have to explain under what law or suspected crime he was detained and his phone was taken as evidence.
Because otherwise they can’t prove he deleted evidence of a suspected crime. So what is the suspected crime?
Agreed
If he’s a US citizen, he’s better off refusing to enter any PIN. That’s protected by the 5th amendment.
If not a citizen and this was in a port of entry context, then he would still have the 5th amendment protection. But customs can simply choose to refuse entry on discretion. So that’s a potentially serious consequence.
At least on an iPhone, if the device has been unlocked since powering on, then forensic tools such as Cellebrite’s can extract information from the phone. The absolute safest bet is to perform a wipe. If this person is an activist then he’s an easy target and likely knew to be prepared for such an interrogation with our current fascist administration.
This may be effective at preventing the government from accessing the data. But as we see, the law, including the 5th amendment, doesn’t protect from legal exposure to obstruction-type charges. Or lying to the cops type charges if you say you’ll unlock the phone, but then you actually wipe the phone.
Sure, but nothing protects you from Fascists if they want to go after you. There’s so many laws that are malleable enough that they can always come up with some excuse. You should be legally protected for doing what this person did, but they’ll still try. We’ll see if their bullshit holds up in court I guess.
It depends on port of entry. The ninth circuit, which covers San Francisco, has upheld that entrants can refuse to provide a phone pin, but other circuits have found differently.
So odd that this happened in California because there’s a pretty powerful set of protections in place in the ninth circuit specifically - not that the current admin gives a shit about the law.
This was in Atlanta, Georgia, unless you’re referring to a different incident than what’s in the OP
The second paragraph discusses an incident that occurred at San Francisco International Airport with the same circumstance. Should have indicated that’s what I found weird because it should have been prevented. The southern courts have been less protective of individual freedoms. Might be legal there under the border exemption according to their courts.