I don't know about other people, but I'm happy to admit that I'm unfamiliar with agriculture and 4H programs.
> The article literally says the girl had a breakdown _at_ the auction.
The Sacramento Bee article linked by the Guardian article says that they expressed their wish to not sell the goat before the auction.
"Before the auction began, the family asked to back out but fair officials refused, saying fair rules prohibited that and put the goat up for auction,..."
That sounds like a civilian dispute. Did the owner/family had the right to back out of the auction at that point or did they not? How can a law enforcement agent become a judge to decide on this?
On the day of. Most auctions don’t permit this. (Again, livestock auctions have a lot of law around them. Their orderly functioning underlies several states’ economies. Teaching this is sort of 4-H’a point.)
> can a law enforcement agent become a judge to decide on this?
They got a warrant [1]
[1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf page 9
Well this person certainly learned an important lesson about where meat comes from.
> They got a warrant.
By misrepresenting facts. And then the warrant didn't authorise them to hand the goat over to some other third party.
This is alleged. Broadly speaking, a complaint alleging a “sham warrant” admits it’s on thin ice.
> the warrant didn't authorise them to hand the goat over to some other third party
The complaint alleges this. It’s a question of civil procedure.