U.S. Citizen Deleted Phone’s Data. Now Faces A Felony Charge

[+ Gar1eth]

This is chilling!!

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/28/us/duress-password-phone-wipe-charge.html?unlocked_article_code=1.1lA.bRWy.o90_nRNjccz-&smid=nytcore-ios-share

[BigDMike]

I can't play that game

Apple iPhones do not have a built-in duress passcode or a specific hidden PIN that triggers a silent data wipe. Duress-wipe features are natively associated with alternative operating systems like GrapheneOS on Google Pixel devices rather than iOS. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

[jeezifonly]

Can the prosecution prove that the motivation was more than reason he'd grab his phone back from his spouse: simply not wanting them to see photos of sexual impropriety? 🤷

[+ Italiano]

This is unf&c$ingbelievable....

Where will we get to??

[+ sync]

So, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are now felonies?

[luvhusky]

We are getting lower and lower by the minute. Corruption by tech and I can’t even talk about politics here so….. fill in the rest. Y’all know what’s happening 

[luvhusky]

What’s even more messed up is that tech probably already knows 100% of the contents of that phone. Sorry I’m stewing in this this morning

[Nightowl]

Proving guilt is going to be an uphill batt for the prosecution 

[BigDMike]

8 hours ago, luvhusky said:

What’s even more messed up is that tech probably already knows 100% of the contents of that phone. Sorry I’m stewing in this this morning

I would agree with you here.....it's sorta like how Instagram or Facebook feeds me stuff based on say a conversation I'm having with a friend at dinner.  Sure enough....later that evening, my feed is filled with posts that are just like that topic.  I have turned on and programmed every imaginable security and privacy setting there is...and yet I still see it.  I've given up

[luvhusky]

They laugh about it. As a bartender who works in fine dining I hear their conversations and it’s all like a joke. One day they will be held accountable I hope 

also AI uses everything we do to learn but doesn’t pay anyone for their services 

[+ Gar1eth]

33 minutes ago, luvhusky said:

They laugh about it

Who are  "they"?

[luvhusky]

35 minutes ago, Gar1eth said:

Who are  "they"?

Tech bros having drinks after work 

[+ BOZO T CLOWN]

On 7/30/2026 at 6:27 PM, Gar1eth said:

This is chilling!!

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/28/us/duress-password-phone-wipe-charge.html?unlocked_article_code=1.1lA.bRWy.o90_nRNjccz-&smid=nytcore-ios-share

 And you find it "chilling" that a criminal statute is actually being enforced?

"US courts have held previously -- though not unanimously -- that a warrantless search at the border is legal including a forensic search of electronic devices."

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260729-us-man-accused-of-destroying-evidence-by-wiping-phone-at-airport

Every time you go thru airport security you are required to empty your pockets. Your pocket contents and carry-on luggage are both subject to search. Do you find that chilling? Checked luggage is also subject to search. Do you also find that "chilling"? What do you think would happen if you attempted to prevent CBP from searching your luggage or other items placed in the tray at the security area? You would likely be arrested just like Mr. Tunick. 

Do you think that citizens should be allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to obey? Like choosing an appetizer off a Chinese restaurant menu. Two from Column A and one from Column B. If Mr. Tunick had nothing to hide he shouldn't have given CBP the passcode which wiped his device clean.  It is illegal to destroy or damage property to stop authorities from seizing it. Period.
A duress passcode is not a get-out-of-jail free card.

How this is even a conversation? For goodness sakes, this guy is on the federal watchlist! Do a little bit of research before commenting.  Having grapheneos and deleting everything on demand just makes him more suspicious. .

"...federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City."

 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone 

BTC
🤡

[wsc]

Paul Lynde was asked on the Hollywood Squares, When is it a good time to put your pantyhose in the microwave for two minutes? His answer was, When the police have your house surrounded.

If you flush cocaine down a toilet while police are breaking down the door, that's arrestable. If you swallow narcotics on a routine traffic stop to keep the cops from finding them, that's arrestable. If you give the police a false name to prevent them from correctly identifying you, that's arrestable. All these actions fall under the general heading of obstruction of justice, and all of them are criminal acts. If you're a suspect in a case of child sexual abuse and the police have been informed text messages on your iPhone contain incriminating evidence in the case and you erase the data as the police close in, that, too, is arrestable. Would the reasonable man want any of this to be different?

The difference between these cases and the one here at bar are the broader search powers granted at ports of entry on the premise that you're not protected by constitutional rights until you're granted entry to the country and including situations which might otherwise constitute unreasonable search and seizure. The courts have ruled.

I don't agree with the courts on these points since the Constitution has instances of the phrase "or subject to their (the government's) jurisdiction," which, in my view you clearly are if you are deemed arrestable, and I believe in the broadest possible interpretations and applications for the protection of peoples' rights under our Constitution whether on our soil or subject to our jurisdiction. This point needs more examination and judicial oversight, unlikely as that might end favorably to my views under the current Supreme Court. Perhaps this case could be used as a springboard to put it before that venue. We'll see.

But for now, the law and its interpretation are what they are.

I am, therefore, unusually and surprisingly. forced to agree with our in-house Clown, the inimitable BTC.

[+ Gar1eth]

On 7/31/2026 at 9:34 AM, Nightowl said:

Proving guilt is going to be an uphill batt for the prosecution 

I'm not so sure. I mean  if he had given a normal passcode, and somehow something screwed up with the end result being the phone was erased, then yes. But, and I'm not a lawyer, if they can prove that he knew that he was giving them a delete passcode (which I wouldn't think would be too difficult), then he doesn't have a defense. 

[+ SirBillybob]

Right, mission impossible … no unambiguous material self-destruct intent whatsoever.

Edited Saturday at 10:40 PM by SirBillybob

[MikeBiDude]

4 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

Right, mission impossible … no unambiguous material self-destruct intent whatsoever.

 

Better in the 1960’s (showing my age!)

 

[+ SirBillybob]

9 hours ago, MikeBiDude said:

Better in the 1960’s (showing my age!)

 

Yeah, I saw it but went with the phone due to the topic. Around that era I’d have likely been detained for having photos of Peter Lupus in my wallet.

Little does secondary inspection know that I currently store questionable content in my RayBans. 

Edited yesterday at 12:41 PM by SirBillybob

[+ nycman]

OK, let’s start with. I’m not a lawyer and certainly not an immigration lawyer.

My advice if you’re worried about US customs finding something on your phone or laptop:

#1 (Safest option) Completely back up the device and wipe it before you cross the border. It’s pretty simple to do and certainly not illegal. If it’s not on you in the no-man’s-land of immigration, they can’t search it without a warrant. In no-man’s-land, anything on you is fair game. And no, you don’t have a right to a lawyer in no-man’s-land. However, this will be seen as suspicious so be prepared for a long delay and interrogation if you get stopped with a wiped device. A non-US citizen will likely be denied entry for carrying a wiped device.

#2) At the very least, turn off your biometric unlocking function, put your phone in airplane mode (in theory they’re not allowed to search your “cloud based data”), and power down your device, before you get anywhere near the boarder. They can’t force you to unlock the phone without a warrant, but they can deny entry for non-US citizens who refuse to comply. And even though US citizens can’t be denied entry, they can confiscate the phone from anyone for “forensic investigation”. This is not as good on option as people think it is. They will still detain you for hours, harass you endlessly, keep your device for months, and again, you won’t have access to a lawyer.

#3 Use an OS that has a wipe/kill function built into it. IMHO, this is by far the worst option. No, they won’t get the data, but you will be facing major charges. To them it’s them same as flushing a bag of cocaine down the toilet while they police are knocking on your front door. Unless you forgot to do #1, and what’s on your device will lead to your death or several decades in jail, this is probably a bad option.

#4 There is no great option. Keep as much “crap” off your devices as possible. Rest assured that searches are relatively rare:

For a quick AI search:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) searched 55,318 electronic devices last year.

 

Search Breakdown

• Basic searches: 50,922 manual checks conducted without required suspicion.

• Advanced searches: 4,396 forensic or data-copying checks requiring reasonable suspicion.

• U.S. citizens: 13,590 searches involved devices belonging to American citizens.

• Context: This total represents a 17.6% increase from the prior year, affecting a tiny fraction (roughly one per 6,800) of total travelers processed

Of course statistics don’t matter if you’re “the one”.

[+ SirBillybob]

#4 is actually a great option and not so labour-intensive.

In Canada, only a very small proportion of travelers upon entry undergo electronic device searches. Yet roughly one-third to two-fifths of those searches reportedly result in criminal charges. Combined with similarly low device-search rates in the U.S., that suggests border agencies are generally relying on intelligence and articulable suspicion rather than conducting random fishing expeditions.

To my way of thinking it’s easy to identify what material would be of interest to those searching, particularly related to activity that is criminalized, and similarly simple to organize it such that it’s not available for scrutiny.

I might go as far as to suggest that some members here hoard content, one driver for that being its potential value in forum contribution. I certainly wouldn’t expect law enforcement to unquestionably assess some select images as legal, notwithstanding that we as a subpopulation share certainty about their legality. 

Edited yesterday at 03:27 PM by SirBillybob

[+ SirBillybob]

One interesting additional component of the law related to the current adjudication of the duress wipe case is that it’s also a serious offence to tip off somebody under suspicion in such a way that they would erase or otherwise obstruct access to content that would be material to a criminal charge. Apart from cooperation in one’s own bargaining favour, that might explain Telegram User 1 not snubbing the FBI’s admonishment regarding sending an alert message via carrier pigeon across Manhattan to Telegram User 2 in a well known recent CSAM and sexual assault case.

Edited yesterday at 03:43 PM by SirBillybob

[+ Act25]

52 minutes ago, SirBillybob said:

In Canada, only a very small proportion of travelers upon entry undergo electronic device searches. Yet roughly one-third to two-fifths of those searches reportedly result in criminal charges. Combined with similarly low device-search rates in the U.S., that suggests border agencies are generally relying on intelligence and articulable suspicion rather than conducting random fishing expeditions. 

I was one of those who twice had my phone and car searched when entering Canada (land entry on the WA border).   No issues (or (I would be writing this from a Canadian jail) and when it was done and I was cleared, I politely asked why and received a polite non-answer.  A couple of years later Canada had no problem issuing me a Nexus card for expedited land entry.  

[+ SirBillybob]

46 minutes ago, Act25 said:

I was one of those who twice had my phone and car searched when entering Canada (land entry on the WA border).   No issues (or (I would be writing this from a Canadian jail) and when it was done and I was cleared, I politely asked why and received a polite non-answer.  A couple of years later Canada had no problem issuing me a Nexus card for expedited land entry.  

The probability of twice is surprising depending on the denominator of entries. What is less surprising is being noncommittal because what could be gained by explaining any particular search trigger? Any relevant roadmap for gaming screening criteria is on travellers. See above. 

Edited yesterday at 05:13 PM by SirBillybob

[luvhusky]

Ok he was a suspect and on the watchlist. Erasing data shouldn’t be illegal in a personal item. If they had a serious issue, they could have gotten a warrant or legal surveillance I would imagine. 
you don’t know what’s on my phone and you shouldn’t. 
since 9/11 there is little left of illegal search and seizure it seems 

[wsc]

13 hours ago, luvhusky said:

Ok he was a suspect and on the watchlist. Erasing data shouldn’t be illegal in a personal item. If they had a serious issue, they could have gotten a warrant or legal surveillance I would imagine. 
you don’t know what’s on my phone and you shouldn’t. 
since 9/11 there is little left of illegal search and seizure it seems 

It's situational. You are free to erase your data from your phone when you want. But this isn't really about that. This is about when you're not free to erase it, as when the police are asking to see it.

The parallel is: It's my cocaine and it's my toilet; I'll flush when I want.
[Free legal advice: don't make that the cornerstone of your defense.]

BTW - I agree with the warrant aspect of this as there doesn't seem to be anything exigent about the circumstances, as long as the authorities seize and hold the phone untampered until a judge has ruled. This is why I think the "not on our soil until granted admission" stance plays too fast and loose with due process and should be immediately abandoned. But the soonest that might happen would be late January of 2029.