Straighten me out please

I know little about the law.

From watching TV crimes shows (please don't laugh!) I know that if a search is made illegally the results can't be used in court.

You never hear it said that the search, itself, breaks a law.

So my question is, does it? Are we protected from the search, itself, by the 4th Amendment or are we just protected from it being used in court against us?

I think that there's no legal penalty for violating the Fourth Amendment. BUT, there is a specific law on this issue that was broken:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

Breaking that law is very serious business and is very much an impeachable offense.

He can be removed from office for violating the constitution. So there is some legal penalty to dickhead if a democratic-controlled legislature is a reality in 2006.

the idea being there is no point in searching for something if you can't convict with it. There is much leeway for "reasonable suspicion" searches...

The Supreme Court instituted the exclusionary rule (evidence can't be introduced in court) as a means of enforcing the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.

I've forgotten more law than I learned in law school but I remember the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine. Anything acquired illegally is not premitted as evidence. I've heard, on this spying issue, that the prez can go ahead with any kind of wiretap and then petition for a warrant from FISA. If FISA decides the search is not permitted, the information gathered must be thrown out. However, I understand that only about 5 of 15,000 requests from FISA have been denied in the past 25 years. The only possible reason for Bush not going to FISA is that the searches he carried out were so illegal, probably spying on his political enemies, that he knew FISA would reject his requests.