alt.hn

8/21/2026 at 12:10:13 PM

Felony charges for citizen deleting phone data at US Border

 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick-deleted-phone-felony.html

by floathub

8/21/2026 at 12:50:52 PM

Amendment 4:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Amendment 5:

"..nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

by 34679

8/21/2026 at 1:04:02 PM

But the bar for hauling someone to court and defacto punishing them financially and smearing them in the eyes of the public is so low. And the path to getting compensation for wrongful prosecution so fraught. What an easy tool the justice system is to punish uppity citizens thinking they don't have a king.

by robviren

8/21/2026 at 2:21:46 PM

The original text is basically useless. They're more like a mission statement rather than directives. They set up broad aspirations, but the implementation has to be aggregated over literally millions of pages of judicial decisions.

Even lawyers with extremely different ideologies will give you convergent answers in a lot of cases, even when those answers conflict with an apparently obvious reading of the original text. Explaining that would require drilling down into details of thousands of court cases -- like reading a complex proof of a seemingly simple theorem.

I don't like that any more than you do. It's not mathematics, and even when given all the details, I usually find their inferences laughably bad -- even when I agree with the conclusion. It's not "logic" as I apply it as a logician, philosopher, or software developer. Lawyers (people on my side ideologically) will insist on the soundness of reasoning for decisions that they don't like but accept as valid.

So I don't find quoting the Constitution to be of any utility. None of those words what you think they mean. And fixing that requires basically throwing out the entire system of American jurisprudence. Which would be fine with me, to be honest.

by jfengel

8/21/2026 at 2:50:22 PM

> None of those words what you think they mean.

And that alone is already a pretty scandalous problem. If the law is not stated in a way that ordinary people can understand, how the hell are they supposed to obey it? Those who cannot afford the highly paid law explainers are basically locked out of society.

by tempodox

8/21/2026 at 3:32:11 PM

I don't think you're entirely wrong, but the Constitution binds the government, not citizens. The government can damn well afford to know what the 4th and 5th Amendments mean.

by krapp

8/21/2026 at 12:55:16 PM

>Amendment 4:

He was charged for destroying evidence, not refusing a search

>Amendment 5:

Destroying evidence isn't testimony. Moreover he would have been in the clear if he just kept his mouth shut.

by gruez

8/21/2026 at 2:04:16 PM

> He was charged for destroying evidence, not refusing a search

Evidence with regard to which investigation?

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 1:02:50 PM

"Evidence" of what, exactly? What specific crime did they expect to find evidence of on his phone?

by krapp

8/21/2026 at 1:29:06 PM

They were pretty obviously hoping to find a specific crime to accuse him of (because he is a protester against the Atlanta "Cop City" thing).

But no respectable judge would ever have issued a search warrant on the basis of "we want to rifle through his messages/contacts so we can hopefully accuse him of something".

Protesters against this exact same thing were mis-prosecuted under "domestic terrorism" and "racketeering" charges before (got dismissed in 2025).

by myrmidon

8/21/2026 at 1:05:04 PM

Evidence of what? Destroying evidence assumes he is guilty of a crime which there be evidence of. Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence. The normal threshold to accuse is a "reasonable, articulable suspicion." This does not meet that criteria.

by josefritzishere

8/21/2026 at 2:54:56 PM

> Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence.

In theory. In practice, this is a hopelessly outdated supposition.

by tempodox

8/21/2026 at 1:18:10 PM

Well that's the thing with destroying evidence. If you destroyed it, it becomes harder (or impossible) to prove you did the crime. That's why it's not uncommon for people to be only charged with stuff like "obstruction of justice" rather than the actual crime they allegedly did.

by gruez

8/21/2026 at 2:07:07 PM

And what if he was erasing a steamy affair with a border patrol agent? That's not illegal, but releasing knowledge of it could be damaging to all parties for no reason.

by bot403

8/21/2026 at 1:25:24 PM

But you can't assume someone committed a crime.

by tosti

8/21/2026 at 12:59:51 PM

You wouldn't catch me making a defense case for obese nazis.

by Varelion

8/21/2026 at 1:05:40 PM

Please try again with an actual argument rather than attacking people based on which "side" I'm on.

by gruez

8/21/2026 at 1:10:37 PM

Is there any question the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism when they realized it was so obviously untenable, as a pretense to detain him would've been treated differently if he were on a different "side"?

by Humorist2290

8/21/2026 at 1:20:47 PM

>the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism

Source? Are we still talking about Samuel Tunick? The article doesn't mention it, and so far as I can tell he was only charged at the border crossing for obstruction.

by gruez

8/21/2026 at 1:08:33 PM

[flagged]

by Varelion

8/21/2026 at 1:10:42 PM

"obese nazis"?

by gruez

8/21/2026 at 1:40:11 PM

you don't have those protections at the border: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

by someothherguyy

8/21/2026 at 1:56:19 PM

Even Wikipedia spells out that invasive searches require "reasonable suspicion." So we return to the core question... suspicion of what? Suspicion is not a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

by josefritzishere

8/21/2026 at 2:22:07 PM

"The government is allowed to use scanning devices and to search personal electronics. Invasive bodily searches, however, require reasonable suspicion." is what the article says

by someothherguyy

8/21/2026 at 1:53:13 PM

There is no such exception allowed in the Constitution. And if a case is made that they're not legally in the US yet, then by the same logic, they should not be subject to all the same laws of the US yet.

by OutOfHere

8/21/2026 at 12:19:53 PM

According to the article, he was actually using GrapheneOS and gave the border official the Duress PIN. So I guess technically it was the official that erased the data :-)

by floathub

8/21/2026 at 12:50:56 PM

I wonder whether it'd be better for a duress PIN to delete existing data and also create a semi plausible artificial profile to hide the deletion event.

by spacebanana7

8/21/2026 at 12:55:21 PM

I don’t think that would fly as a defense in court.

by nkrisc

8/21/2026 at 12:59:35 PM

He’ll just have to pray the scene wasn’t recorded and his real PIN was one digit off

by phoghed

8/21/2026 at 1:54:52 PM

No, to my knowledge, they ask you to enter your PIN/password yourself. They don't enter it for you. I believe he entered it himself, at which point the erasure began. The erasure process was witnessed by the officer.

by OutOfHere

8/21/2026 at 12:31:43 PM

"I wired a bomb to the safe which triggers if you enter a given code. When the police asked me for the safes code I gave them that code, so it was technically the cop that killed himself and his colleagues"

Or even

"A soldier stepped on a landmine but since it was his footsteps that triggered the mine he technically killed himself"

by gruez

8/21/2026 at 12:39:00 PM

There is a difference between exploding a bomb and deleting your data. One is a crime.

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 12:53:00 PM

>There is a difference between exploding a bomb

Mines (in wars, as implied by "solider") aren't illegal. Also even for the first example there are certainly improvised explosives you can set up that isn't criminal to create or set off, fireworks for instance. Same with a barrel of gasoline. It's certainly a crime to use it to kill someone, but that's my point. By OP's logic it's not the person who set it up's fault, it's the person who triggered it.

by gruez

8/21/2026 at 1:03:56 PM

If you set up a device to explode once someone enters a room, it doesn't matter who set it off by entering the room if they had no idea the room would blow up.

I don't think it'll be very easy to get out of liability in this case. The duress PIN is a feature explicitly designed to delete all data when it is entered, especially in cases of coercion like this. There would be more plausible deniability if officers had simply discovered it somewhere and tried it on their own, but in this case it was knowingly provided directly in place of the real PIN.

by LoganDark

8/21/2026 at 12:55:03 PM

Intentional destruction of evidence is also a crime. Now, whether this applies to this scenario I suppose will have to be determined by the courts.

Destroying potential evidence before suspicion is not a crime. Destroying it once under suspicion is a crime. So anyone can destroy their data at their hotel room even just before entry even if the data contains evidence of crimes. Of course the courts could take that into evidence to support the argument that there were crimes but it would not be a crime in and of itself.

by mc32

8/21/2026 at 1:04:06 PM

Great comment. Wish it was the top one so I didn't have to read through the others to get here.

Do you have thoughts as to how the courts would debate the deletion that you could present on a similar intellectual plane?

by ComputerPerson

8/21/2026 at 1:19:26 PM

Destroying potential evidence before suspicion is a crime if done with intent to impede a future investigation, even if the investigation hasn't yet started. Your example would be a crime if it could be proven that there would likely have been evidence in what you deleted.

by LoganDark

8/21/2026 at 12:49:17 PM

Deleting your data is absolutely a crime when you know the authorities could've wanted whatever it was you deleted -- even if they haven't told you yet. It stands to reason that providing a duress PIN that deletes your data when entered would be a crime as well, if said data is of interest.

Not to say that I personally agree with either of those cases. But what is considered crime can get pretty unfair when it comes to the authorities thinking you did something wrong.

by LoganDark

8/21/2026 at 1:44:54 PM

> when it comes to the authorities thinking you did something wrong

Did they though? Was there an actual investigation going on?

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 2:00:57 PM

Here "wrong" includes phony bullshit like going after political activists. Even if you did nothing actually wrong, and you know it, and you can prove it, successfully messing with the authorities tends to be pretty difficult.

by LoganDark

8/21/2026 at 12:55:01 PM

Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do

by bdangubic

8/21/2026 at 12:56:16 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence

by gruez

8/21/2026 at 1:07:58 PM

First, that is not an actual statute and second exactly what "evidence" is my phone, evidence of what exactly?

by bdangubic

8/21/2026 at 1:28:32 PM

Evidence of anything. You're tampering with evidence if you act to prevent them from seeing something, even if they had no reason for suspicion. Like how you get arrested for fleeing even if you didn't do anything wrong.

by LoganDark

8/21/2026 at 1:48:28 PM

> even if they had no reason for suspicion

Are you sure about that?

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 2:46:07 PM

Sure - if we were banana republic (which we may be or becoming...)

by bdangubic

8/21/2026 at 1:58:27 PM

[dead]

by LoganDark

8/21/2026 at 1:14:09 PM

> Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do

The google search required to find the answer ("federal statute for destruction of evidence") is shorter than your question here.

"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry..."[0]

[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

by yodon

8/21/2026 at 2:07:40 PM

Let's say I want to retire my laptop to my kid, so I reformat it. Are you saying in the eventuality that federal police then wants my laptop that I have committed a crime?

If so, on that assumption, should no one ever be able to erase data on their hardware? Is it schrodingers guilt, that you're simply not guilty until someone looks, and then you are?

And if not, you haven't answered GP's question.

by croon

8/21/2026 at 1:46:41 PM

> knowingly

Did he know he was suspected of something? Was he suspected of something?

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 1:47:34 PM

It's more about knowing the PIN would wipe the device, and providing it with that intent.

Edit: 18 U.S.C. § 1519 doesn't seem to cover this (unless it covers the act of setting up the duress PIN in the first place as "altering"). § 2232(a) covers actually knowingly providing the duress PIN.

by LoganDark

8/21/2026 at 1:12:19 PM

There is a federal criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations)

> Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

That covers the first part of my comment. As for the second part, there is 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) (destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure)

> Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

IANAL, but the encrypted data on the device could be considered property, and the act of providing the duress PIN in place of the real one could be considered a knowing action for the purpose of preventing the government either from continuing to hold that data under its control, or from seizing the data into its control in the first place (since the data was never decrypted).

by LoganDark

8/21/2026 at 1:49:50 PM

> destruction of records in federal investigations

There was a federal investigation going on?

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 1:59:40 PM

That's not from the statute that applies in this case

by LoganDark

8/21/2026 at 12:49:07 PM

Legal Eagle just covered this, it's quite interesting analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2rokxux5cU

by neom

8/21/2026 at 12:59:14 PM

Not even a minute in. "Oh, he's protesting Cop City, got it. This is just police harassment."

by bena

8/21/2026 at 1:12:38 PM

The guy from Game Changer?

by knute

8/21/2026 at 1:22:52 PM

[dead]

by neom

8/21/2026 at 1:34:08 PM

I don't get the legal contradiction.

The search is supposed to be lawful without a warrant because you're not really in the US yet per-se, hence if you're not there, how deleting the data can be a felony?

by juancn

8/21/2026 at 1:56:36 PM

That is a most interesting and underrated point.

by OutOfHere

8/21/2026 at 1:02:05 PM

Seems like it would be better to have a truecrypt type of situation, where if you put in a certain pin, then it just logs you into a separate OS with nothing you want to hide.

Obviously have the duress pin if what’s in your phone is worse than the obstruction charges too.

by phoghed

8/21/2026 at 1:38:59 PM

I don't know about you, but don't people use encryption to retain privacy? And are people still free to manage their personal information? Doesn't a duress PIN present that information in its intended form? I'm confused.

by adfm

8/21/2026 at 1:03:52 PM

Would it be permissible to wipe your phone before going through customs to get back into the US? If they ask to search your already wiped phone, you aren’t destroying any evidence.

by quickthrowman

8/21/2026 at 1:58:22 PM

Yes. Of course it is permissible. It is your device. The wipe must have completed before arriving at the counter.

by OutOfHere

8/21/2026 at 12:56:15 PM

If the government wants you no amount of technical gotchas will prevent this.

by amazingamazing

8/21/2026 at 12:37:28 PM

Paywalled, but what is the actual charge? Is it some extremely generic "obstructing an investigation" one? The US is quite good about making court documents available on line, if someone can find it.

by pjc50

8/21/2026 at 12:39:35 PM

The article says he was charged with obstruction.

You can try this "gift link" to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick...

by hoppyhoppy2

8/21/2026 at 12:47:28 PM

He is charged with obstruction, but under domestic terrorism (as defined by a national security presidential memorandum).

by floathub

8/21/2026 at 12:41:05 PM

Obstruction to what though?

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 12:49:16 PM

Injustice ;)

by c0l0

8/21/2026 at 12:51:50 PM

Illegitimate abuse of border control power to restrict freedom of speech.

by stymaar

8/21/2026 at 1:59:53 PM

The gift link shows only a fraction of the article text. Just stick to https://archive.is/SflVC.

by OutOfHere

8/21/2026 at 12:40:16 PM

Knowingly providing a PIN that would erase evidence is going to get tough in court.

But the man was also hated by the cops because of his activism. They were going to catch him for something, some day. This incident just provided the necessary excuse to lock him up.

by jeroenhd

8/21/2026 at 1:16:01 PM

There is no duty to keep a copy of messages and private data on your phone for the FBI to peruse at its leisure. Quite the opposite, actually (according to the constitution).

It is pretty clear to me that law enforcement conspired to abuse a border crossing to effect basically an unconstitutional search ("fishing expedition"), which it would never have gotten a warrant for.

This is them being spiteful after that whole thing failed. Note how law enforcement basically admits this on the record. The whole thing is a disgrace; every decisionmaker involved in this should be sacked immediately.

by myrmidon

8/21/2026 at 12:41:54 PM

Evidence of what?

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 12:57:10 PM

Whatever they claimed they needed access for his phone to. Probably nothing serious that would be worth more than a fine, if anything. But now they've got him for deleting evidence, which is pretty bad.

by jeroenhd

8/21/2026 at 1:52:12 PM

> if anything

That’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? If there was no suspicion whatsoever, hence no investigation, then he couldn’t possibly obstruct it.

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 12:42:54 PM

How can they prove that? What if it was a glitch?

by gonzalohm

8/21/2026 at 1:00:33 PM

That shouldn't be too hard. Get someone from Google or someone with any tech knowledge to explain to the judge how phones normally work, what encryption keys are, the implications of wiping an encryption key, and then get someone to show the difference between entering a normal PIN wrong several times and entering the duress PIN. You just need to convince the jury (or judge, if there is no jury for whatever reason).

People have gone to jail or have been executed for less than a glitch. Theoretically a highly charged particle from space could've messed with exactly the right transistors exactly when entering the correct PIN and trigger the wipe process. There is no way to prove that didn't happen. But you don't need that kind of proof.

by jeroenhd

8/21/2026 at 1:45:20 PM

Right, the halting problem means one can hardly prove anything at all when it comes to software.

by tosti

8/21/2026 at 3:39:44 PM

No, it means there is no general solution to the problem of proving software correct. You can prove if a specific program will halt or not given certain parameters. You cannot write an algorithm that will work to prove if any arbitrary program will halt.

by bena

8/21/2026 at 3:02:00 PM

Sure buddy. And the uncertainty principle means you can't prove I was at the scene of the crime.

The fact phones don't usually wipe themselves will be plenty good for a judge.

Btw: Regardless of the above I support this guy's right to protect his private data from baseless and unreasonable searches. He should not be charged with a crime.

by bot403

8/21/2026 at 12:49:41 PM

> They were going to catch him for something, some day. This incident just provided the necessary excuse to lock him up

funny reading this (don't disagree) and then also reading on HN how China is "bad" this is some gestapo shit but not surprising that it is getting normalised ...

by bdangubic

8/21/2026 at 1:05:50 PM

China is strictly worse than the USA when it comes to border controls. That doesn't mean the USA is good or acceptable in any way; these laws are part of the reason why I don't plan on visiting the country. The USA also has much worse laws on the books, like having to give the authorities your social media passwords to check if you're secretly a terrorist (though that doesn't apply to citizens).

Excessive border patrol power has been around in the USA for ages now, it's all part of the post-9/11 package. I don't think many Americans even know they live in a zone where the border police can do shit like this, even if they haven't left the country, as international airports are usually near big cities, and they have a wide border zone around them. This stuff only really makes it into the news when it happens to one of the "good guys".

by jeroenhd

8/21/2026 at 1:01:29 PM

China is indeed "bad" for the gestapo shit. The difference is that China's gestapo shit comes with benefits for the common man too, whereas in the US the gestapo shit only serves the inner circle at the top of the regime with zero benefits to 99% of the populace.

by deaux

8/21/2026 at 12:42:19 PM

Yet another case that will waste the court's time and money. All this is doing is keeping defense lawyers pocket's lined.

At this point, people should buy a burner phone when going to/from the US. In that phone only have a couple of phone numbers and that's it.

by jmclnx

8/21/2026 at 12:46:22 PM

Oh, they may well give you bad time if your phone looks like a burner with too little content.

by Sharlin

8/21/2026 at 1:23:03 PM

This is not... advice. But if anyone's actually going to do this, the method that's worked for me...

A couple weeks before your trip, factory reset whatever burner phone you're planning on using and swap your SIM card over. Install a few basic apps you wouldn't mind them looking through. Enable hotspot/tethering, and connect your other phone via Wi-Fi.

For a couple of weeks, use the burner as much as you can with what is available on it. When you're driving, us the maps app for GPS. Make and receive some calls, ignore some spam calls. Read the news. Get a few inane text messages conversations going, etc.

When you travel, leave your regular phone at home and take the burner. When it's searched at the border, it has enough activity to pass most initial smell tests. If asked, you dropped your other phone and didn't have time to get it fixed before your trip, this is one a friend lent you.

This has worked for me. Never _actually_ into anything illegal, but just apparently had a suspicious vibe about me or something because every time I crossed the border into or out of the country I was spending 4-5 hours getting searched. Didn't need someone going through my entire life going back decades every time--once was enough.

by nucleardog

8/21/2026 at 1:07:52 PM

> Oh, they may well give you bad time if your phone looks like a burner with too little content.

Issuing 'burner phones' and laptops to staff visiting countries such as China or the USA is now SOP for many companies handling sensitive data, including mine.

Don't think this isn't unusual.

by GJim

8/21/2026 at 2:07:09 PM

Exactly, these people making shit up about border crossings are either doing so in bad faith or haven’t done a lot of international business travel.

by iamnothere

8/21/2026 at 12:54:07 PM

If you are a citizen it doesn’t matter. They have to let you in.

by iamnothere

8/21/2026 at 1:22:53 PM

Wouldn’t be the first time the US government grossly abused its own citizens and violated their rights

by ydat

8/21/2026 at 2:04:50 PM

And yet this distant possibility doesn’t seem to happen very often to citizens, as long as we still have courts. Not that actual abuses should be trivialized.

This comes across as fearmongering to keep people from protecting themselves.

by iamnothere

8/21/2026 at 12:53:40 PM

If you are a citizen like this person is then you can tell them to fuck off, they can keep the phone, and they have to let you in.

by skinfaxi

8/21/2026 at 12:55:25 PM

They have to let you in. Doesn't mean they have to let you roam the country freely. They can just send you to some form of detention.

by nucleardog

8/21/2026 at 1:00:04 PM

That isn’t true. They can detain you briefly for questioning at the border, but if there is no crime then you will be released. Feel free to dig into historical court cases about border detention if you disagree.

If you get charged with a crime, things are very different.

by iamnothere

8/21/2026 at 1:29:15 PM

Nope, no disagreement. I just see your take as very optimistic.

There is no court at the border. If the agent decides you're going to jail, you're going to jail. The decision may be reversed/corrected after, but it's still going to be a big, expensive problem for you and you _are_ going to be detained for a time.

Not to mention walking up with an empty phone and telling the agent to "fuck off" when they ask about it sure sounds eerily similar to the facts of the case in the linked article. I'd wager that's a good way to land an obstruction charge.

by nucleardog

8/21/2026 at 2:02:12 PM

If the abuse is egregious, you have a decent chance of pro bono representation or a lawsuit payout. In any case, activism comes with personal risk, and part of activism is accepting that risk while attempting to protect others. (This person was an activist, and it’s likely that they wanted to confine the damage to themselves.)

For the second part, having an empty phone is not a crime, and being arrested for this would be a major scandal. The tech press and political outlets would be all over it. It’s generally a good idea to avoid directly antagonizing border guards, though.

by iamnothere

8/21/2026 at 12:58:37 PM

They won't unless you are already on "their list" My phone basically looks like a burner phone, I do not use social media, do not install apps, my iphone fits (with room to spare) all "apps" on a "single page." I just call and text from my phone and have a browser and maps and that is basically it.

by bdangubic

8/21/2026 at 12:56:30 PM

Also, you might accidentally drop your burner in the lake/ocean before you return. It happens!

by iamnothere

8/21/2026 at 12:55:14 PM

Think it’s better to travel without a phone at all and buy one when arriving in the us? Problematic I guess with everything being digital

by ramgine

8/21/2026 at 2:02:16 PM

It has been standard practice for some time now in some European companies.

by hamper653

8/21/2026 at 2:07:30 PM

> At this point, people should buy a burner phone when going to/from the US.

At this point? This has been standard practice for a while now.

by hamper653