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.

  • Harvey656@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    You have to be charged with a crime first or actively part of a crime investigation for that to be true, even then thats Stretching.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Thats not true at all. The most basic example would be flushing drugs down the toilet when the piggies knock on your door.

      Edit: I guess that would fall under your “actively under investigation” clause?

      • Harvey656@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Yeah pretty sure if they are at your door the investigation has started. But a cell phone randomly is seriously pushing the definition of investigation me thinks.

      • fodor@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Actually, that is how it works. And if you don’t believe us, then take 10 minutes and do a brief web search and you will find the same information… In this situation the law matches common sense which says that most of the time you are allowed to erase things on your own phone and when it is a special case then you need to know it’s a special case for it to be a crime.