Final answer:
Video surveillance in a public place is not an example of an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as there's no expectation of privacy in public areas.
Step-by-step explanation:
The subject in question deals with the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Among the given options, video surveillance in a public place is NOT generally considered an example of an unreasonable search or seizure. This is because there is typically no reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas, and such surveillance is often used for security purposes. Options such as the nonconsensual extraction of blood can be deemed unreasonable depending on the context, such as a lack of a warrant or exigent circumstances. Detention for longer than 48 hours after a sobriety checkpoint stop without formal charges could violate a person's rights. Gathering fingerprint evidence, while potentially intrusive, is often permissible in the proper legal context and with sufficient grounds for suspicion.
The correct answer is b. Detention of longer than 48 hours after a criminal stop of motorists at sobriety checkpoints.
Unreasonable search and seizure refers to actions by law enforcement that violate an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring that searches be conducted with a warrant based on probable cause. While gathering fingerprint evidence in certain circumstances, nonconsensual extraction of blood, and video surveillance in a public place may sometimes be considered searches, they do not fall under the category of unreasonable search and seizure when conducted under certain legal conditions.