The answer is State National Guards
Mapp v. Ohio primarily extended the Fourth Amendment's protections to state law enforcement officers, not specifically to all law enforcement officers, which would include federal officers who were already covered.
The case did not specifically address undercover officers; it was more about the general application of the Fourth Amendment to state actions.
Federal officers were already subject to the Fourth Amendment due to previous rulings, so Mapp v. Ohio did not extend new protections to them.
While the case primarily affected state law enforcement, the term "State National Guards" is not typically associated with law enforcement in the context of search and seizure laws. However, the ruling did extend protections to state-level actions, which could include state entities like the National Guard when acting in a law enforcement capacity.
The answer is Obstructing traffic in order to record a protest.
This is generally protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech and public oversight.
This is also generally protected under the First Amendment, provided it does not interfere with police operations.
This could be considered illegal as it involves obstructing public ways, which is not protected under the First Amendment.
This is generally legal unless specific security measures or laws prohibit it for safety reasons.
The answer is 14th
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was a precursor to the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, which was a separate issue from the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The 10th Amendment deals with states' rights and powers not delegated to the federal government, unrelated to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The 18th Amendment established the prohibition of alcohol, which is unrelated to civil rights legislation.