American Being Prosecuted for Wiping His Phone Before Handing It Over to Border Officials

He’s being prosecuted for giving border officials a code that wiped his phone:

The case centers on a feature included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software on most modern Google Pixel devices. Tunick’s attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on his phone.

The software feature allows the device owner to set a passcode that deliberately wipes the contents of that device if entered instead of the user’s unlock passcode.

Tunick’s case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter.

Right. And he wasn’t under arrest, either.

Three more news stories.

Graphine says that the feature is “completely legal“:

GrapheneOS is completely legal. We have no obligation to weaken any of the security protections it provides. Creating and using GrapheneOS is strongly protected by the US constitution. Laws attempting to make it illegal or require weakening the security would be unconstitutional.

It’s hard to know how much the Constitution matters in the US right now.

Posted on July 30, 2026 at 12:20 PM6 Comments

Comments

Hans Baeker July 30, 2026 1:06 PM

Jason,

I agree. It would be nice to have a passcode/pin to wipe the phone. Make it something like 1111 that a phone thief might try instead of your real passcode/pin of 5151. It would seem likely that a thief would try 1111 early on.

Wolfger July 30, 2026 1:57 PM

“It’s hard to know how much the Constitution matters in the US right now.”
Depressingly accurate.

Scott July 30, 2026 2:07 PM

FWIW, the article in the NYT I read explained the statute in question a bit:

“The act applies before, during or after a search. If the target of an investigation knows that a search or seizure is imminent, and that person acts to thwart it, he or she would fall under the statute, experts said.”

So given that they asked for the phone and he then deleted in response is a main issue.

Not that the overall situation isn’t crap, but I think that the application specifically of that law to the situation (once you get past everything that got us there) is potentially a reasonable interpretation.

lurker July 30, 2026 2:48 PM

@Wolfger

I s’pose it’s something to do with the typo on the second page of the indictment:

“… in violation of Title 18, Untied States Code,Section 2232(a)”

So, you see he’s at the border, hasn’t entered the US, doesn’t have his constitutional rights, YET Title 18, S.2232(a) can be thrown at him. That’s usually called “extra-territoriality”. The Chinese were complaining about it 160 years ago.

Leave a comment

Blog moderation policy

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.