Well. It would be a bit like the roadster launch into space. Experimental rocket, so great if it works, not bad if it does not.
That said, intercepting an orbiting satellite safely is a hard task.

Border agents don't need a warrant or probable cause to search your phone. If you act in front of them in any way that impedes their attempt to search you, then you're obstructing. Deleting the data in front of them certainly qualifies, IMHO.

The guy should have deleted the data himself, before he even showed up at the border. Then I think he would have been fine.

Border agents don't need to "believe" anything about what's on your phone. They don't need probable cause. They can just search without it.

He. Was. Crossing. The. Border.

And that means all the conditions you're throwing out here don't apply. Border agents can search without probable cause or a warrant.

Well, they might legally detain your jersey, and seize it after verification, if they suspect it's a counterfeit that violates IP rights. But that would come under "illicit" items.

You're not the only one in this discussion thread to forget that the guy was crossing a border. When you do that, your due process is heavily reduced. Border agents can search without probable cause or a warrant. That has been the case since the 18th century.

How is it different? A person is physically transporting it across a border. And at the border, your due process is heavily curtailed. Border agents can search you without a warrant or probable cause.

If you tried to send digital contraband across a border via encrypted communications, that's probably also a crime, but the methods for investigating and prosecuting it are different.

It's not "ideas" that border agents are trying to protect the country from. It's people who are committing crimes, or who want to commit them. And searching phones is one way border agents catch such people.

Oh, but surely they'll win, they indicted [strike]a ham sandwich[/strike] this man! And the Trump administration has such a spectacular record with high-profile prosecutions thusfar...

Which I dispute, and was not the point of this thread anyway. That was: what happens at a border crossing?

You cannot have your permanent residency revoked at the border. All that can happen at the border is the border agent can deny you entry.

Only an immigration judge can revoke your permanent residency, and only after a hearing at which you can be represented by counsel. (So, not "instantly.") I'm not sure what schemes the current administration has about new criteria for revoking permanent residency, but I doubt any of them involve "no evidence." They have to be able to convince a judge it needs to be revoked. We have heard about Khali's case from only one side in this discussion.

And another thing: permanent residency status is distinct from the green card that shows you have it. Your green card can expire (after 10 years) but your permanent residency status does not, and will not. You just need to apply for a new card.

Pissing off a border agent may result in consequences, but it's not a prosecutable crime. Obstruction is, and that's what the guy was charged with. And I'm sorry to say that it just might stick in court.

Border agents have been able to conduct searches of persons and their effects entering the country since the first Congress in 1789. The exception to the 4th amendment has been affirmed by many Supreme Courts, dating back to at least the 19th century.

I agree the current branches of government should pay close attention to the US Constitution, but in the case of border searches, the 4th Amendment exception was established long ago, not recently.

Point taken, but Khalil's case is about deportation, not denial of entry. His challenges are in immigration court, not at the border in front of an agent.

You and others in this discussion keep forgetting something: the guy was crossing the border. And yes, that means the 4th Amendment means nothing. Border agents can search without having a warrant or probable cause.

You got a whole lot wrong. The JCPOA was signed on July 14, 2015, was adopted on October 18, 2015, was implemented on January 16, 2016, and was scheduled to be in effect until October 18, 2025.

Nope. The deal said, and I quote: Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.

Now, you may be cynical about Iran's commitment to this statement, but the fact is that they were abiding by it. International inspections mandated under the JCPOA confirmed it. Until, of course, Trump tore up the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, and then Iran was free to start enriching higher than 3.67%. Which they did.

As for what was to happen when the deal would have expired on October 18, 2025 ... well geez, you got me. I dunno, maybe ... negotiate a new one? That certainly seems like a better scenario than ending the deal prematurely, thus leading to the current mess we're in.

In any case, Trump saw to it that 10 years of Iran being monitored for compliance with the agreement was cut very short, and consequences followed.

No, they're reasons for denying you entry. Border agents don't have the authority to void your permanent-residency status. Only an immigration judge can do that.

There is a Form I-407 (Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status) that a border agent may put in front of you. NEVER SIGN IT. Any abandonment of your permanent-resident staus is voluntary. A border agent may not force or induce you to do that, though some might try to trick you into doing so.