Support justice-driven, accurate and transparent news — make a quick donation to Truthout today!
The Department of Justice is trying to prosecute a man allegedly involved in the movement against Atlanta’s Cop City for using a “duress” password on his smartphone that reportedly wiped its contents, in a seemingly unprecedented line of prosecution as the Trump administration expands its methods of criminalizing those with left-wing beliefs.
According to The Guardian, the defendant, Sam Tunick, was traveling back from a vacation in the Dominican Republic in January 2025 when he was stopped by an agent at the Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta. His reentry into the country had been flagged by a Homeland Security agent, who circulated an email to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents and a local FBI joint terrorism officer saying that Tunick is being investigated for “suspected terrorism activities.”
Agents interrogated him not about alleged activism, but about child sexual abuse images, as “a pretext for a fishing expedition into Mr Tunick’s connections” into the movement against Cop City, reads a motion filed on behalf of Tunick by his lawyers earlier this year. He was denied access to a lawyer four times during the interrogation, and was not read his rights nor presented a warrant.
The agents pressed Tunick to open his phone and threatened to seize it if he didn’t comply. He eventually provided a password, and CBP officers entered it, at which point the “screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart,” the government said.
The agents said they would be seizing Tunick’s electronic devices, according to the motion, and would return them after 30 days. He was allowed to leave, but then was charged in November using an obscure statute that bars the “destruction of removal of property to prevent seizure.”
The government accuses Tunick of having an operating system known as GrapheneOS on his phone, a Google Pixel. The open-source operating system has a focus on user privacy, and allows users to set a duress password that deletes all of the data and eSIMs on the device.
Tunick’s lawyers have requested that any evidence obtained during his interrogation and from his phone should be tossed because, the motion says, it was taken in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Tunick’s case has raised concerns about privacy and the government’s willingness to potentially encroach on constitutional rights in its hunt to “defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute” the left under the Trump administration’s “National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 initiative,” known as NSPM-7. Experts have said that they do not know of another case where someone was charged simply for the use of a duress password.
“We all have a right to secure our private data against unconstitutional searches. And we should — especially in a time of rising authoritarianism,” said Atlanta Solidarity Fund member Marlon Kautz, per The Guardian.
Attempts by the state to prosecute Cop City activists have faltered thus far. But last month, the Department of Justice secured an indictment against two Cop City activists that government officials explicitly touted as part of NSPM-7. The case is “led by the investigative and prosecutorial Joint Task Force Vanguard,” Trump’s new “anti-Americanism” task force.
Recent cases against other activists have similarly raised concerns about the government’s crackdown on the left. Last month, eight protesters were handed decades-long sentences in connection to a protest last year at the Prairieland Detention Center. One person, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, who received a 30-year sentence, wasn’t even present at the protest but was convicted for moving a box of zines from his home that he shared with his wife, Maricela Rueda.
Press freedom is under attack
As Trump cracks down on political speech, independent media is increasingly necessary.
Truthout produces reporting you won’t see in the mainstream: journalism from the frontlines of global conflict, interviews with grassroots movement leaders, high-quality legal analysis and more.
Our work is possible thanks to reader support. Help Truthout catalyze change and social justice — make a tax-deductible monthly or one-time donation today.
Facts Only
* Sam Tunick was traveling back from the Dominican Republic in January 2025.
* An agent stopped Tunick at Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta.
* A Homeland Security agent flagged Tunick's reentry, circulating an email to CBP agents and a local FBI joint terrorism officer regarding suspected terrorism activities.
* Interrogation focused on child sexual abuse images, according to a motion filed by Tunick’s lawyers.
* Tunick was denied access to a lawyer four times during interrogation.
* Agents pressed Tunick to open his phone and threatened seizure.
* Tunick provided a password, and CBP officers entered it, causing the phone screen to blank and restart.
* The government stated they would seize electronic devices and return them after 30 days.
* Tunick was charged in November using a statute barring the "destruction of removal of property to prevent seizure."
* The government accused Tunick of using GrapheneOS on his Google Pixel, which has a duress password feature.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative centers on the tension between state security enforcement and constitutional privacy rights, particularly concerning digital communications. The sequence of events suggests a potential conflation of unrelated matters—a routine border check escalated into an investigation targeting activism, sexual abuse imagery, and novel technology (GrapheneOS). The application of severe legal penalties is framed by a broader political context involving the Trump administration’s NSPM-7 initiative, suggesting that digital privacy concerns are being leveraged to pursue politically motivated targets. The framing implies that technological defenses against surveillance, such as duress passwords on open-source systems, are viewed as an existential threat to state interests, rather than fundamental rights protections. This suggests a pattern where legitimate security procedures are expanded through the invocation of ambiguous statutes and broad mandates, creating space for retrospective criminalization of dissent under the guise of national security. The system appears designed to prioritize perceived control over individual constitutional safeguards when pursuing specific political objectives.
Bridge questions: What is the precedent for using novel cryptographic methods as grounds for prosecution? How does the government balance the public interest in security against established Fourth Amendment protections in digital contexts? What are the long-term implications for privacy rights when law enforcement can prioritize suspicion based on broad political narratives over demonstrable evidence of criminal action?
Sentinel — Human
The text appears to be a piece of investigative or advocacy journalism that weaves specific legal details with broader political themes, exhibiting characteristics consistent with human reporting rather than synthetic generation.