that it is convoluted logic,but why do we only hear about these cases when they find something illeagle?
all these arguments would hold more water with me if they had searched and found nothing.
Because those are the ones that go to court. Illegally obtained evidence isn't supposed to be admissible at trial, so that's where illegal searches get challenged, and if you can't afford a lawyer then the public defender will challenge it for you.
On the other hand, if someone performs an illegal search of your house, car, or person and doesn't find anything, they leave you alone. Most people don't have the money to pursue a civil-rights-violation lawsuit in that circumstance, and you won't have a court-appointed lawyer to do it for you, either. So unless you are (1) wealthy, (2) know an attorney that will handle the case
pro bono, or (3) you find an attorney who thinks there is a big settlement at the end of the rainbow (not likely), then you just have to suck it up and go on, without redress.
That's why.
It is likely that the vast majority of illegal searches find nothing, but the only ones that have a realistic chance of being challenged in court are the ones that do find something illegal, for the aforementioned reasons.