Can Police Search Your Phone Without a Warrant? What the Samuel Tunick Case Reveals

Attorney Eric R. Pangburn discusses United States v. Tunick, a federal case raising important questions about cellphone privacy, warrantless searches, and when law enforcement may access the digital contents of your phone.

Your phone may contain more private information than almost anything else you own: years of messages, photos, location history, financial records, health information, and access to online accounts. When law enforcement wants to search it, the rules matter.

A closely watched federal prosecution in Atlanta, United States v. Tunick, raises an unusual question at the intersection of cellphone privacy, border searches, and alleged evidence destruction. The facts are unusual, but the underlying issues matter to anyone who carries a smartphone, including people here in Wisconsin.

Here is what the case is about, what the law generally says about cellphone searches, and what you should do if police ask to search or unlock your phone.

Quick answer: In most ordinary police encounters, officers need a warrant to search the digital contents of your cellphone unless a recognized exception applies. Important exceptions can include consent, exigent circumstances, and border searches. Whether police can compel you to help unlock the phone is a separate legal question.

What Happened in the Samuel Tunick Cellphone Case?

Samuel Tunick is a U.S. citizen and political activist associated with the movement opposing Atlanta’s police and fire training facility, commonly known as “Cop City.”

In January 2025, Tunick was returning to the United States from the Dominican Republic through Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers sent him to secondary inspection. According to his attorneys, the encounter was not a routine random screening. The defense alleges that federal authorities were already interested in Tunick because of his political activism and coordinated with CBP before he arrived.

Agents questioned Tunick and demanded access to his cellphone. His defense says he initially refused and repeatedly asked for an attorney. The defense further alleges that agents told him they could search the phone without a warrant because he was entering the United States. Eventually, he provided a passcode. An officer entered it, and instead of unlocking, the phone reportedly went blank, flashed several times, restarted, and erased its data.

A federal grand jury later indicted Tunick. He has pleaded not guilty, and the allegations against him have not been proven.

What Is a “Duress PIN”?

Reporting on the case indicates that Tunick’s Google Pixel used GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused operating system that can be configured with a “duress PIN.”

A normal PIN unlocks the phone. A duress PIN can be configured to do the opposite by erasing the device’s data. The feature is intended for situations in which someone is being forced to provide a password.

The government alleges that Tunick knowingly gave officers the code that caused his phone’s contents to be deleted. One fact makes the prosecution especially unusual: the officer, not Tunick, physically entered the code. Tunick did not smash the phone or manually delete files in the officer’s presence. The legal significance of that distinction is part of the dispute.

What Felony Was Tunick Charged With?

Federal prosecutors charged Tunick under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a). In plain English, the statute makes it a crime to intentionally destroy, damage, or otherwise act on property to prevent or interfere with the government’s lawful authority to take that property into custody or control. A conviction can carry up to five years in federal prison.

That creates an unusual constitutional problem. If the government’s authority to seize or search the phone was itself unlawful, can a person be convicted for interfering with that authority? The prosecution focuses on the alleged destruction and Tunick’s intent when he supplied the code. But the statute also depends on the government acting under lawful authority, and the defense is challenging that premise.

Can Wisconsin Police Search Your Cellphone Without a Warrant?

For an ordinary police encounter in Wisconsin, the general rule is that officers need a search warrant to examine the digital contents of your cellphone unless a recognized exception applies.

The U.S. Supreme Court established that baseline in Riley v. California (2014). Before Riley, prosecutors argued that a phone found on an arrested person could be searched like other items in a pocket. The Court unanimously rejected that approach. A modern smartphone can hold an enormous amount of intensely private information, so police generally must obtain a warrant before searching its digital contents after an arrest.

That Fourth Amendment protection applies in Wisconsin as well. The harder questions arise when police claim an exception to the warrant requirement or when they try to compel a person to unlock the device.

Are There Exceptions to the Cellphone Warrant Requirement?

Yes. Like most Fourth Amendment rules, the warrant requirement has exceptions. Depending on the facts, the most important can include:

• Consent — You voluntarily agree to let law enforcement search your phone.
• Exigent circumstances — A genuine emergency makes obtaining a warrant impractical.
• Border searches — Federal officers have broader authority to search people and property entering the United States.
• Other recognized exceptions — The specific facts of an investigation can affect whether a warrant is required.

The border-search exception is central to Tunick’s case. Customs officers have long had broader authority to search people and property crossing the border without a traditional warrant. But applying rules developed for luggage and physical items to a smartphone raises difficult constitutional questions. Courts have not been completely uniform about how much phone data border agents may inspect and what level of suspicion, if any, is required for more intrusive digital searches.

Can Police Make You Unlock Your Phone Without a Warrant?

This is a different question from whether police have legal authority to search the phone itself. There are really two issues:

1. Do police have lawful authority to search the device?
2. Can police legally require you to help them unlock it?

Courts around the country have wrestled with whether forcing someone to disclose a memorized password violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A password exists in your mind, so requiring you to reveal it can be viewed as forcing you to communicate information you know.

Biometric unlocking methods such as Face ID and fingerprints raise a different question because police may argue that using a physical characteristic is more like taking a fingerprint or photograph than forcing a person to reveal the contents of their mind. The law in this area continues to develop, and the answer can depend on the jurisdiction and the precise facts.

For someone facing an actual demand from law enforcement, the safest assumption is not that refusing access, giving a false password, or attempting to delete data is automatically lawful. Those actions can create separate legal problems. If you do not want to consent, you can clearly say that you do not consent to a search and that you want to speak with an attorney.

Why Does the Government’s “Lawful Authority” Matter So Much?

This may be the central issue in Tunick’s prosecution. The statute he is charged under concerns interference with the government’s lawful authority over property, while his attorneys are challenging the legality of the airport encounter itself.

That puts two questions side by side:

• Did the government have lawful authority to seize or search the phone in the first place?
• If it did, did Tunick intentionally cause data to be destroyed in order to interfere with that authority?

Those questions are for the federal court to resolve.

Does Tunick’s Political Activism Matter?

Potentially. His attorneys contend that federal authorities targeted him because of his association with the movement opposing Atlanta’s police training facility. Those are defense allegations, not findings by a court.

The broader constitutional point matters regardless of politics. Today the person under investigation may be a left-wing environmental activist. Tomorrow it could be a gun-rights advocate, an anti-abortion protester, a journalist, or someone protesting government policy from a completely different direction. The First and Fourth Amendments protect principles, not political teams. Whether the government acted improperly toward Tunick is for the courts to decide, but investigation based on protected political activity should concern Americans across the political spectrum.

What Should You Do if Police Ask to Search Your Phone in Wisconsin?

If Wisconsin police ask for permission to search your cellphone, remember that a request for consent is not the same thing as a warrant. You generally have the right to decline consent.

You do not need to argue with the officer or physically interfere. If police have a warrant, seize the phone anyway, or claim an exception allows them to search without your permission, those are issues a criminal defense attorney can challenge later.

Two things are especially important:

• Do not physically resist.
• Do not assume that deleting evidence, remotely wiping a device, providing false information, or otherwise trying to block law enforcement from obtaining evidence is legally protected merely because the phone belongs to you. Those actions can create additional criminal exposure.

What if Police Already Searched Your Phone?

A warrantless cellphone search does not automatically make a criminal case disappear, but it can create an important suppression issue. A criminal defense attorney can examine questions such as:

• Did police have a warrant, and what exactly did it authorize?
• Did you actually consent, and was that consent voluntary?
• Did police exceed the scope of your consent or the warrant?
• Did a recognized exception genuinely apply?
• Were statements or other evidence obtained because of an unlawful search?

If evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, your attorney can ask the court to suppress it. If the motion succeeds, prosecutors may be barred from using that evidence against you.

Why Cellphones Have Changed Search-and-Seizure Law

United States v. Tunick involves unusual facts, but the underlying tension is now everywhere. Smartphones contain far more private information than anyone imagined when many traditional search-and-seizure rules were developed, and technology will continue to change.

The constitutional question is more enduring: how far should the government be able to reach into a person’s private life without first obtaining permission from a judge? That question matters whether the person under investigation is a political activist, someone accused of a serious crime, or an ordinary Wisconsin resident pulled over on a Saturday night. Constitutional protections matter most when the government would prefer not to be constrained by them.

Frequently Asked Questions About Cellphone Searches in Wisconsin

Can police search my phone without a warrant in Wisconsin?

Usually not in an ordinary police encounter. Police generally need a warrant to search the digital contents of a cellphone unless an established exception applies, such as valid consent or exigent circumstances.

Do I have to give police my phone password?

Whether police can compel disclosure of a memorized password is a developing Fifth Amendment issue and can depend on the jurisdiction and facts. If police demand your password, you can state that you do not consent and that you want to speak with an attorney.

Can police use Face ID or my fingerprint to unlock my phone?

Biometric unlocking can be analyzed differently from a memorized password because it uses a physical characteristic rather than requiring you to reveal something you know. The law is still developing, so the answer may depend on the circumstances and jurisdiction.

What happens if I refuse consent to a phone search?

Refusing consent does not authorize physical resistance, and it does not prevent police from acting under a warrant or another lawful exception. But a clear refusal can help preserve the issue for later review by a court.

Can illegally obtained cellphone evidence be suppressed?

Potentially. If police obtained evidence through a search that violated the Fourth Amendment, a defense attorney can ask the court to suppress that evidence and, in some circumstances, evidence derived from the unlawful search.

Wisconsin Criminal Defense Attorneys for Illegal Search and Seizure Issues

West & Dunn represents people accused of crimes throughout Wisconsin. Our criminal defense attorneys scrutinize police searches, cellphone evidence, search warrants, interrogations, and other potential constitutional violations.

If police searched your cellphone or another electronic device as part of a criminal investigation, the fact that officers found something does not necessarily mean they obtained it legally. Contact West & Dunn to discuss your case with our criminal defense team.

This article discusses a pending federal criminal prosecution. Samuel Tunick is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty, and disputed factual allegations have been identified as such. This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.