Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Crime The Courts Cellphones

DHS Lied About Why It Wanted To Search Activist's GrapheneOS Phone (404media.co) 340

Posted by BeauHD from the would-you-look-at-that dept.
New court records reportedly show that DHS targeted Stop Cop City activist Samuel Tunick at an Atlanta airport because he was under investigation for suspected "terrorist activities." However, the CBP officers told him instead that they wanted to search his phone for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Tunick, who is not accused of terrorism or any other crime beyond allegedly wiping his GrapheneOS phone during the encounter, faces up to five years in prison. 404 Media reports: Instead of saying he was being targeted for suspected terrorism -- although this search happened just at the start of the second Trump administration, it has dramatically broadened what organizations or people may be considered such -- they said they needed his phone to look for "kiddie p*rn." "Good afternoon," an email sent from a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) official, part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to CBP and other officials reads. "The following subject is scheduled to arrive in ATL [Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport] today via DL 1778 @ 1930 Hours. TUNICK is under investigation by HSI/JTTF for suspected terrorist activities." The email includes a photo of Tunick, and asks the officials to direct him to secondary inspection, retain all of his electronics, and collect their passcodes.

As 404 Media first revealed in December, Tunick was charged because he allegedly "did knowingly destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, and otherwise take any action to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel cellular phone, for the purpose of preventing and impairing the Government's lawful authority to take said property into its custody and control." Matthew Dodge, one of Tunick's lawyers, previously told 404 Media he only found one other case using the same obscure law, a drug trafficking case. "This is extraordinarily rare," Dodge said.

Tunick was part of the Stop Cop City movement in Atlanta, which broadly protested the building of a large police training center, and which authorities investigated for arson, vandalism, and doxing. Tunick is not suspected of any crime beyond the alleged wiping of the phone, and has previously put his current prosecution in the context of the wide spanning cases against other Stop Cop City protesters. The newly filed court record, in which Tunick's lawyers argue that evidence should be thrown out, include new photos and descriptions of the airport encounter. The CBP officials asked Tunick if they were going to find "kiddie p*rn" on his phone, which Tunick immediately denied. "As the evidentiary hearing made clear, these unfounded accusations were nothing more than pretext for a fishing expedition into the depths of Mr. Tunick's devices," the lawyers wrote. They added, "Officer Findley acknowledged that officers had no reason whatsoever to believe Mr. Tunick possessed child p*rnography," referring to one of the officials.

DHS Lied About Why It Wanted To Search Activist's GrapheneOS Phone More | Reply

DHS Lied About Why It Wanted To Search Activist's GrapheneOS Phone

Comments Filter:

  • Projection (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

    Coming from the guy who was best buds with Epstein.

    • I recall that Epstein made some spicy offers with Trump's female staff at Mar-a-Lago back before 2007. Trump kicked Epstein out and banned him. Later, Trump went to the FBI about Epstein. Needless to say, Epstein hated Trump. I'd love to know the truth of WTF is going on with everything that happened after the second conviction, including those 4 years of silence during the Biden years and Epstein's relationship with the Clintons. We do know one the Epstein's billionaire buddy did fund lawsuits against Trum

  • YOU MUST AQUIT!

  • In other news (Score:3)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @03:11PM (#66384866)
    I am shocked to learn that gambling was happening in this establishment

  • They are explicitly allowed to lie (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @03:18PM (#66384880) Homepage Journal

    Even when not undercover, police are not just allowed to lie, they are encouraged to do so in training.

    That's how you know they don't work for us.

    • Your first sentence is true. But your second sentence isn't a logical conclusion drawn from the first.

      Just because they lie, doesn't mean they "don't work for us."

    • Everyone does their level best to ensure the civilian world is well aware that cops are allowed to lie.

      The real problem is addressing WHY the FUCK no one in law enforcement ever questions the practice.

      Hell of a world we live in. Teach little Johnny to be a good honest boy to grow up to be a man with integrity, only to be introduced to the “professionals” who lie though their fucking teeth, in a society taught to respect first responders.

      Law enforcement needs a lesson in accountability and integ

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      That's an understatement. There is an on-going scandal in the UK known as "Spy Cops", where police were went undercover to infiltrate left wing groups. They didn't just infiltrate though, they started relationships with some of the members, even fathering multiple children. Management knew all about it.

      So that's at a minimum rape. UK law doesn't allow you to sue for the creation of a child, but there is probably a good case for the psychological harm done to both the mother and the child.

  • If you enter the country, you can be searched without a warrant. Not needing a warrant means they don't have to present a reason for the search to a judge (or anyone else). The lie is the legal equivalent of them saying "because". CSAM is the generic bogeyman excuse they'll give if they don't want the suspect to tip off and of his buddies.

    • Re: anyone can be searched on entry (Score:5, Informative)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @03:36PM (#66384926)
      Your person and luggage can be searched without a warrant; however, seizure is limited to specific things. Contraband, food, etc. There are conflicting federal court rulings as to whether devices can be searched without a warrant. In this case, DHS was arguing that they did not need a warrant because Turnick was not under investigation yet they knew to search him because he was under investigation.

    • Re:anyone can be searched on entry (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @04:10PM (#66385014)

      Being searched is not the same as taking lawful possession of something of yours. This has been analysed to death already, the DHS is very likely to lose this case as they rely on an obscure law that actually requires a very specific set of conditions to apply. A generic search of you or your possessions fails the criteria for lawful possession and therefor tampering with your stuff that is being searched doesn't fall afoul of this law.

      Now if the department had a specific warrant detailing that they needed to take the device because it contained specific materials, that would be a different matter. But if they did have that then this case would be over already.

    • Re:anyone can be searched on entry (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @05:37PM (#66385234) Journal

      Searched, yes.

      Siezed, no.

      And no law forces you to give up evidence against yourself without a warrant - in fact we even have a whole Constitutional amendment about that. If they want hair / blood samples, that requires a warrant. Why do you think that forcing someone to unlock their phone would not?

  • What difference does it make? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @03:28PM (#66384918)
    Does it matter what the authorities claim to be looking for?

    The answer should always be "Do you have a warrant?" followed by invoking your right not to answer any of their questions.

    You may still be arrested even if you've done nothing wrong, but your attorney will have a much easier time getting charges dismissed (and filing suit against the authorities for civil rights violations) if you don't willingly give the authorities anything with which they might convict you.

    • Re:What difference does it make? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @04:12PM (#66385018)

      Does it matter what the authorities claim to be looking for?

      Yes, in fact it is critical to this specific case. They are accusing him of destroying %thing% during the process of taking lawful possession. To take lawful possession they must have evidence that they are looking for %thing% and that %thing% was likely on the device, and therefore %thing% was destroyed.

      Now the issue here is %thing% is not generic, it has to be specific and related to evidence. They don't have that. This is good news because for once it seems lawyers will be the ones getting fucked, specifically DHS lawyers.

      • "To take lawful possession they must have evidence that they are looking for %thing% and that %thing% was likely on the device"

        The evidence is that he tricked them into wiping the device, which is destruction of evidence by US law whether you think it should be or not. His commission of a crime makes it look like he's hiding a crime. What he did was also obviously premeditated as he was set up for it.

        Yes this is disgusting, but so is almost everything about CBP

        • Re: What difference does it make? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Hank21 ( 6290732 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @05:00PM (#66385142)
          > "which is destruction of evidence by US law "
          assuming there was evidence to be destroyed to begin with - that phone could have been a complete blank phone. They don't know - it's fishing So the argument has to be they KNEW there was evidence that was destroyed. But how could they have known. Chicken and egg. This is a case of sour grapes.

        • Re: What difference does it make? (Score:5, Informative)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2026 @07:20AM (#66386084)

          The evidence is that he tricked them into wiping the device

          No you have a causality problem. It is entirely his device to wipe at his whim, unless the government was in the direct process of "taking lawful possession" of the data. And again for that they need to provide evidence that they they knew what they were looking for was on that device and that they had the authority to take possession (the lawful part) of the data.

          It is very much legal to destroy evidence. In fact everyone who has smoked a joint has destroyed evidence. It is only illegal if that evidence is lawfully possessed or under the process of being lawfully possessed by the government. No one can jail you for taking a shit and then claiming you flushed drugs down the toilet. They need to prove both that you had drugs, that they had a warrant to search and take the drugs, and that you did in fact flush drugs.

          His commission of a crime makes it look like he's hiding a crime.

          Looking guilty is not a crime. Go read the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment.

          What he did was also obviously premeditated as he was set up for it.

          This is the most interesting one, since there's no case law on this. But what did he do? He was asked for a code and gave one. He was not in possession of the device, he didn't type a code in. How is a distress password different from encrypt and lock-out after x failed attempts? These are all very interesting legal questions that haven't been answered. But one thing is clear, your statement does not support any outcome one way or the other.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Does it matter what the authorities claim to be looking for?

      The answer should always be "Do you have a warrant?" followed by invoking your right not to answer any of their questions.

      You may still be arrested even if you've done nothing wrong, but your attorney will have a much easier time getting charges dismissed (and filing suit against the authorities for civil rights violations) if you don't willingly give the authorities anything with which they might convict you.

      CBP doesn't have that. If you're a citi

  • You cannot destroy data, harmless or not ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @03:34PM (#66384924)
    Once a search is initiated, you cannot destroy data. That data is legally considered evidence. Period. Doing so is considered a crime in and of itself, independently of whether what you are accused of is true or not, independently of whether that data is harmless or not. Destruction of evidence is considered a type of obstruction of justice. It doesn't matter what that evidence would have eventually shown, it doesn't matter if you would be found innocent. You are f'ing with the legal process and they will f' you up for that.

    If you don't want the data to be seen by customs, don't carry it through customs.

    • Re:You cannot destroy data, harmless or not ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SoCalChris ( 573049 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @03:41PM (#66384936) Journal

      He didn't destroy the data though, the officer did when he blindly put in the code that was given to him. If they are serious about wanting to get into the phone, they should have cloned it first, and then worked off of the copy, and none of this would have been an issue.

      This is sloppy work by customs.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        He didn't destroy the data though, the officer did when he blindly put in the code that was given to him. If they are serious about wanting to get into the phone, they should have cloned it first, and then worked off of the copy, and none of this would have been an issue.

        This is sloppy work by customs.

        Providing a "distress password" that leads to rendering the data unreadable would legally be considered destruction. The intent of providing the "distress password" remains destruction.

    • Was the search initiated if the phone was still in his hands?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Was the search initiated if the phone was still in his hands?

        The search is initiated when you are informed of the search or instructed to provide the device and password.

        • A password is considered "Testifying" against one's self. SCOTUS has ruled that biometrics are not. Therefore, ask for a lawyer and STFU and wait.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            A password is considered "Testifying" against one's self. SCOTUS has ruled that biometrics are not. Therefore, ask for a lawyer and STFU and wait.

            He voluntarily provided a password. But it was a distress password that triggered a destruction of data. He acted with intent to destroy the data.

            • Don't care what they claim it destroyed. It is a claim. They claimed to be looking for something that turned out to be manufactured. The police lied. After that, I don't care what happens to the phone.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by drnb ( 2434720 )

                Don't care what they claim it destroyed. It is a claim. They claimed to be looking for something that turned out to be manufactured. The police lied. After that, I don't care what happens to the phone.

                DHS did not lie to CPB, CPB was properly informed. CBP lied to the traveler, they are allowed to do that.

    • You seem to have ignored the legal problem where if the search is not legal, there can be no crime with destroying the data. Second, I would point out that the data has not been destroyed. It still exists on his phone. It cannot be decrypted at the moment.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        You seem to have ignored the legal problem where if the search is not legal, there can be no crime with destroying the data.

        The search was legal, from the summary:
        "... an email sent from a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) official, part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to CBP and other officials reads. "The following subject is scheduled to arrive in ATL [Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport] today via DL 1778 @ 1930 Hours. TUNICK is under investigation by HSI/JTTF for suspected terrorist activities." The email includes a photo of Tunick, and asks the officials to direct him to secondary inspectio

        • Did they have a warrant signed by a judge spelling out with specificity exactly what evidence they had probably cause to believe was on the phone? Or was it a fishing expedition to try to manufacture charges to punish someone who hurt their little fee-fee? Judges tend to frown on fishing expeditions.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            Did they have a warrant signed by a judge ...]

            "In United States criminal law, the border search exception is a doctrine that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause"
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            "All travelers crossing the United States border are subject to CBP inspection. On rare occasions, CBP officers may search a traveler’s mobile phone, computer, camera, or other electronic devices during the inspection process."
            https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp... [cbp.gov].

        • Re: You cannot destroy data, harmless or not ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @05:01PM (#66385144)
          No part of your statements says that DHS obtained a warrant to search and seize his phone. This where DHS is using SchrÃdinger's reasoning: According to DHS, they do not need a warrant because the search was "random" and he was not under any investigation. Yet they told Customs to look for certain things because he was under investigation and he was targeted for a search at the border. It turns out they lied and the search was not random. Such a search requires a warrant. Therefore the search was illegal.

    • Once a search is initiated, you cannot destroy data. That data is legally considered evidence. Period.

      When you use the phrase "Period." it helps to be correct. You are not correct. Doing a search is not the same as taking lawful possession. You absolutely may destroy things during a search, you may not do it in the process of taking lawful possession.

      The law is incredibly clear and specific on that and there's a mountain of case law defining when something is or isn't an act of taking lawful possession, and a simple search isn't it.

      If you don't want the data to be seen by customs, don't carry it through customs.

      What data? Be specific, because specificity is required to trigger this obst

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        The law is incredibly clear ...

        You seem to be referring to moments other than crossing a border.

        If a generic search is under way then by definition no one is attempting to take lawful possession and you're free to destroy whatever the fuck you like (and that's before we discuss who did the destroying).

        You seem to be ignoring it was not a generic search.
        ""did knowingly destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, and otherwise take any action to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel cellular phone, for the purpose of preventing and impairing the Government's lawful authority to take said property into its custody and control.""

      • Destroying any data you have reason to believe might be relevant in a court case is destroying evidence by US law whether you've even been notified that it is of interest or not.

        • So every corporation is liable for obstruction now for following their own data retention policies?

          Legal holds are a thing, for a reason. How can someone be held liable for obstruction when they were never notified not to destroy something, and just decided they wanted to wipe the device and start over from OEM? They can do what they like with their personal property, including wiping encryption keys UNLESS there is a subpoena for records / search warrant. THEN it becomes obstruction.

          I'm not a lawyer, bu

  • Lying (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @03:54PM (#66384968) Journal

    Police are allowed to lie during an investigation.

    This is the end of the conversation. All interactions ought to be considered suspect from the beginning.

    "I don't consent. I want a lawyer. I invoke my rights to remain silent".

    Then STFU. You don't have to say anything, or do anything other than provide ID. The contents of the phone are important, then it will go into a tamper resistant chain of custody bag and sealed. If they can crack it, great, then they'll have to answer for that if they didn't get court search warrant. Let your lawyer protect you. You have no chance by yourself. Hence STFU.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

      Police are allowed to lie during an investigation.

      Yes, they are, to certain extents. But what is silly about this is that there was no need to lie in the first place. It's not like saying they're looking for CSAM instead of terrorism would have a different result than just being honest, other than perhaps a feeling of extreme urgency to prove he didn't have any CSAM - which could be argued is illegal. Even though there are no warrants involved in this, it sounds like this would be on the same level as actually having the warrant but lying about what it say

  • Some idiot fired a gun and it hit a cop. Several involved in the protest is now doing 50 years in jail.

    None of them had anything to do with the shooting.

    At this point if you oppose the administration and you make it known they can throw you in jail for the rest of your life and there is fuck all you can do about it. The only reason they aren't locking you up right now is because it's not worth the trouble.

    Eventually if the Trump administration wins another election or two they won't need your vo
    • In my experience, the majority of people showing up for the No Kings rallies are in fact... baby boomers, who are genuinely afraid of a fascist takeover of government. The true Trumpers are usually the younger incel man types. Most women don't really like the guy who bragged he could grab them by the pussy any time he wanted to.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by KILNA ( 536949 )

        Both of you are right, Trumpers are incels and grumpy old folks who feel heard by the troll... opposition are anti-fascists who think protest makes a difference, regardless of age. This isn't primarily an age divide, it's a historical awareness and social empathy divide.

      • The majority of people who have time out of their day to go to a protest because they're not working 90 hours a week driving Uber to try and scrape together rent money this week are baby boomers. So it is hardly a surprise that they're on the older side but they are also overwhelmingly female so you kind of left that out...

        If you want to play games with demographics I'm game but you're not going to like the results.

  • Enough said. (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @04:32PM (#66385062)

    DHS Lied ...

    You can usually just stop here.

    • According to Information Theory, the phrase "DHS lied" contains 0 information, because it does not tell us anything we didn't already know. The same argument applies to the phrase "Trump lied".

  • Interesting... (Score:3)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @04:44PM (#66385082)
    How does the government intend to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt that he destroyed evidence on the phone when they can't prove there ever was any evidence on the phone in the first place???

    • Do they have to prove this? Or just obstruction?

      Of course, if there was no investigation (as DHS has said sometimes), then what was he obstructing?

      Frankly, the idea that the government can search the phone of a citizen at the border is an abomination in what is supposedly a free society.

      Judges have engaged is so much doublethink about borders. This was an airport, so how was he not already in the USA when the plan landed?

  • but does the 5th Amendment come in to play here at all?

Slashdot Top Deals

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." -- Artemus Ward aka Charles Farrar Brown

Close