Is it illegal to trick the US government into wiping your phone during a questionably legal search?

A Georgia man was charged with a felony for allegedly wiping his phone while being questioned by Customs and Border Protection. Samuel Tunick had something in common with others who have had their devices searched at airports: He was an activist. Is it illegal to trick the US government into wiping your phone during a questionably legal search? The case of a traveler who allegedly entered a ‘duress password’ to wipe his phone raises a legal question with no easy answers. The case of a traveler who allegedly entered a ‘duress password’ to wipe his phone raises a legal question with no easy answers. Unlike others who have had their phones seized with no explanation, Tunick was told that CBP needed to search his device to determine whether it contained child sexual abuse material, according to court filings. But Tunick’s attorneys argue that the search “was a pretext for a fishing expedition” into his connections with the Stop Cop City protests in Atlanta, in which dozens of people were charged under state RICO laws, which were later dismissed. A few protesters are still facing domestic terrorism and arson cases. According to a motion to suppress evidence filed in March, Tunick didn’t consent to a search and repeatedly asked to speak to his attorney, but CBP officers told him they didn’t need a warrant to search his phone. Tunick ultimately gave the agents the password to his phone, but when they entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart,” court records say. Prosecutors allege that Tunick used the GrapheneOS “duress password” to wipe his phone, therefore deleting evidence. Travelers’ devices have come under increased scrutiny since Donald Trump’s return to office — and the courts don’t agree on the legality of these warrantless searches. As a result, travelers have little clarity about how their rights apply at airports and other ports of entry. This gray area has allowed the Department of Homeland Security to target people perceived to be criticizing the president or the policies of his administration. The confusion comes from a patchwork of federal rulings. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in United States v. Payne that law enforcement can forcibly unlock a person’s device with their fingerprint, facial recognition, or other biometric markers without running afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. But people can’t be forced to provide or enter their passcode, since it’s a form of “testimonial” evidence — information that requires a person to reveal their thoughts. Those rulings, however, weren’t issued with airports in mind, and CBP claims that the Constitution doesn’t apply at ports of entry. Judicial opinion is mixed on that, too. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — which oversees federal courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia — recently ruled that border agents don’t need a warrant to manually search…