That part makes sense, but it would seem that the fourth amendment (or even the fifth) would be the one they'd want to cite. The first amendment would only make

That part makes sense, but it would seem that the fourth amendment (or even the fifth) would be the one they'd want to cite. The first amendment would only make sense if they government was trying to punish someone for the content of their speech. That isn't the case here. The government is trying to punish someone for murdering someone else. That is in no way protected under the first amendment. The fourth amendment is usually the one where judges find privacy rights. The first amendment is the opposite...it guarantees you the right to be public without being punished for it. It would even make more sense to argue that the fifth amendment protections on self-incrimination cover these recordings, though that would be a really hard sell considering wire taps don't enjoy that kind of protection.