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

在一次合法性存疑的搜查中，诱导美国政府抹除你的手机数据是否违法？

The case of a traveler who allegedly entered a ‘duress password’ to wipe his phone raises a legal question with no easy answers. 一名旅客涉嫌输入“胁迫密码”抹除手机数据，这一案件引发了一个难以简单回答的法律问题。

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. 佐治亚州一名男子因在接受海关及边境保卫局（CBP）盘问时涉嫌抹除手机数据而被控重罪。塞缪尔·图尼克（Samuel Tunick）与机场其他被搜查设备的人有一个共同点：他是一名活动人士。

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. 据法庭文件显示，与那些被无故扣押手机的人不同，图尼克被告知 CBP 需要搜查其设备，以确定其中是否包含儿童性虐待材料。但图尼克的律师辩称，这次搜查“只是为了进行‘钓鱼式执法’”，意在调查他与亚特兰大“停止警察城市”（Stop Cop City）抗议活动的联系。在该活动中，数十人曾被控违反州《反勒索及受贿组织法》（RICO），但相关指控后来被驳回。目前仍有几名抗议者面临国内恐怖主义和纵火罪的指控。

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. 根据三月份提交的一份证据排除动议，图尼克并未同意搜查，并多次要求与律师通话，但 CBP 官员告诉他，搜查手机无需搜查令。最终，图尼克向特工提供了手机密码，但据法庭记录显示，当他们输入密码时，“屏幕变黑，闪烁了几次，手机似乎重启了”。检察官指控图尼克使用了 GrapheneOS 的“胁迫密码”抹除了手机数据，从而销毁了证据。

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. 自唐纳德·特朗普重返白宫以来，旅客的电子设备受到了更严格的审查，而法院对于这些无证搜查的合法性尚未达成共识。因此，旅客对于自己的权利在机场和其他入境口岸如何适用感到困惑。这一灰色地带使得国土安全部能够针对那些被认为批评总统或其政府政策的人。

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. 这种混乱源于联邦法院判决的不一致。第九巡回上诉法院在“美国诉佩恩案”（United States v. Payne）中裁定，执法部门可以通过指纹、面部识别或其他生物识别特征强制解锁个人设备，这并不违反第五修正案中关于防止自证其罪的保护条款。但人们不能被强迫提供或输入密码，因为这属于“证言性”证据——即需要个人披露其思想信息的证据。

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 travelers’ phones. (More advanced forensic searches, however, do require a warrant.) A separate appeals court whose jurisdiction includes Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico ruled that agents can conduct manual and forensic searches without a warrant. Meanwhile, a federal judge in New York’s Eastern District determined that CBP agents can’t conduct any device searches without a warrant. 然而，这些裁决并非针对机场情况而定，CBP 声称宪法在入境口岸并不适用。对此，司法界的观点也存在分歧。负责马里兰州、北卡罗来纳州、南卡罗来纳州、弗吉尼亚州和西弗吉尼亚州联邦法院的第四巡回上诉法院最近裁定，边境特工无需搜查令即可手动搜查旅客手机。（但更高级的取证搜查仍需搜查令。）另一个管辖范围包括缅因州、马萨诸塞州、新罕布什尔州、罗德岛州和波多黎各的上诉法院则裁定，特工可以在没有搜查令的情况下进行手动和取证搜查。与此同时，纽约东区的一名联邦法官裁定，CBP 特工在没有搜查令的情况下不得进行任何设备搜查。

Tunick’s case has some details in common with the one that precipitated the New York ruling. The New York case began with a criminal investigation of Kurbonali Sultanov, a naturalized citizen from Uzbekistan whose name triggered an alert on the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, which identified him as a potential purchaser of child sexual abuse material. In court, Sultanov said agents told him he had no choice but to unlock his phone. He was also questioned by agents with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations, who read Sultanov his Miranda rights, which he said he understood “50/50,” before questioning him. 图尼克案的一些细节与引发纽约裁决的案件有相似之处。纽约案始于对库尔博纳利·苏尔塔诺夫（Kurbonali Sultanov）的刑事调查，他是一名来自乌兹别克斯坦的入籍公民，其名字在财政部执法通信系统中触发了警报，被认定为潜在的儿童性虐待材料购买者。在法庭上，苏尔塔诺夫表示，特工告诉他别无选择，只能解锁手机。他还受到了美国移民及海关执法局（ICE）国土安全调查处特工的盘问，特工在盘问前向他宣读了米兰达警告，苏尔塔诺夫称他对此“半懂不懂”。

It’s unclear why CBP agents believed Tunick had child sexual abuse material on his phone. The two-page indictment filed in a Georgia federal court makes no mention of it, and CBP did not respond to The Verge’s request for comment. 目前尚不清楚 CBP 特工为何认为图尼克的手机里存有儿童性虐待材料。在佐治亚州联邦法院提交的两页起诉书中并未提及此事，CBP 也未回应《The Verge》的置评请求。

“Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant should be required, or at a bare minimum, specific suspicion that there is illegal digital contraband on the device,” Nathan Freed Wessler, the deputy director of ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told The Verge. “Agents should never be allowed to conduct warrantless searches on behalf of domestic law enforcement agents who just want to evade the normal Fourth Amendment requirement to get a warrant from a judge.” 美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）言论、隐私与技术项目副主任内森·弗里德·韦斯勒（Nathan Freed Wessler）告诉《The Verge》：“根据第四修正案，应该需要搜查令，或者至少要有具体的怀疑，认为设备上存在非法数字违禁品。特工绝不应被允许代表那些只想规避第四修正案中‘从法官处获取搜查令’这一常规要求的国内执法人员进行无证搜查。”

The suspicion that immigration agents are surveilling activists has plenty of basis. In a lawsuit filed in Minnesota federal court, a Minneapolis labor organizer claimed that CBP was conducting “systematic” searches of activists’ devices, using counterterrorism as a pretext to keep tabs on the president’s left-wing critics. In March, more than a dozen members of a convoy that delivered humanitarian aid to Cuba had their phones seized at Miami International Airport. 移民特工正在监视活动人士的怀疑并非空穴来风。在明尼苏达州联邦法院提起的一起诉讼中，一名明尼阿波利斯的劳工组织者声称，CBP 正在对活动人士的设备进行“系统性”搜查，以反恐为借口监视总统的左翼批评者。今年三月，一个向古巴运送人道主义援助物资的车队中，十几名成员在迈阿密国际机场被扣押了手机。

Phone inspections at ports of entry are still relatively rare: CBP searched 55,318 phones and other electronic devices during the 2025 fiscal year, a 32 percent increase since 2023. (The US had more than 5 million international visitors in June 2025 alone, a figure that doesn’t include US residents.) But activists across the country have noted an uptick in surveillance since Trump returned to office, and the president has focused on cracking down on the left during his second term. 入境口岸的手机检查仍然相对罕见：CBP 在 2025 财年搜查了 55,318 部手机和其他电子设备，比 2023 年增加了 32%。（仅 2025 年 6 月，美国就有超过 500 万名国际游客，这一数字还不包括美国居民。）但全国各地的活动人士指出，自特朗普重返办公室以来，监控力度有所增加，且总统在第二个任期内一直专注于打击左翼势力。