GrapheneOS Defends Duress PIN as Tunick Faces Federal Charges

By Khal · Jul 30, 2026 (1 hour ago) · 2 min read

Editorial illustration for: GrapheneOS Pushes Back as Duress Password Case Proceeds — Image generated for editorial use · Generated via fal.ai FLUX — editorial license · Published Jul 30, 2026, 1:32 p.m. (1 hour ago)

In brief

Samuel Tunick charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2232 for entering a duress code that wiped his Google Pixel at the border in January 2025
Tunick pleaded not guilty; faces up to five years in prison with ruling expected by end of October
GrapheneOS claims its duress PIN feature is legal, constitutional, and designed to protect privacy against state coercion
Public defender argues DHS pre-announced the search, agents found nothing, and could have sought a warrant

The Charge and Defense

Tunick is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2232 and pleaded not guilty, facing up to five years in federal prison. His federal public defender, Matthew Dodge, said DHS officers called ahead to the airport and asked that Tunick be stopped and his phone searched.

Agents searched his bags and person over his objections and found nothing, Dodge said. They could have sought a warrant but did not.

Dodge found one other prosecution under the same statute, in a drug trafficking investigation, calling the charge "extraordinarily rare." That rarity underscores how unusual this prosecution is.

The Technology and Timeline

GrapheneOS added the duress PIN feature in June 2024 as a defense against data extraction scenarios. The feature allows users to enter a secondary code that securely wipes encryption keys, rendering the device unrecoverable. GrapheneOS founder Daniel Micay pointed to the secure element in the Google Pixel phone as a defense against state coercion.

Once key material is wiped, "there's nothing we can do to assist with it," GrapheneOS wrote, and bypassing encryption is "not possible" by design.

The Stakes

Tunick told 404 Media that the charges are "meant to intimidate people against protecting their data" and that the government "hopes to set a precedent that no one has the right to privacy."

Tunick described a year of surveillance before the indictment, including a tracker on his car and subpoenas for his phone records and Gmail account.

GrapheneOS responded to the prosecution with a public statement. The firm said it has no obligation to weaken security protections and that laws requiring it to do so would be unconstitutional.

A CBP spokesperson said all travelers are subject to inspection, and that searches of electronic devices are rare and decided case by case.

A judge is expected to rule on Tunick's motion to suppress no earlier than the end of October.