As per Article Six of the United States Constitution,
... all ... judicial Officers shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ...
(the text is codified in 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office).
Does this oath expose the violators to extra punishment compared to ordinary citizens?
Context
Consider the case of Robert and Addie Harte:
Law-abiding tea drinkers and gardeners beware: One visit to a garden store and some loose tea leaves in your trash may subject you to an early-morning, SWAT-style raid, complete with battering ram, bulletproof vests, and assault rifles.
A judge granted a search warrant based on one visit to a garden store and some loose tea leaves in the trash.
This does seem to violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ...
and tea leaves plus garden store visit does not constitute a "probable cause" (at least, not from the POV of the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit).
Thus it would seem that the Judge who issued the warrant violated the 4th Amendment and his/her oath of office to protect the same.
It would seem reasonable (to me) to expect that such a judge would be expelled from the bench - why does this never happen? (Absolute immunity, alas, shields the judge from criminal and civil prosecution).
PS. It is alleged that the Police Officers might have lied to the Judge to get the Warrant. Regardless of whether this is true or not, someone has to be fired - either the Officers (who have Qualified immunity) or the Judge. Both swore to uphold the Constitution. They, collectively, did not. If we cannot established who is the guilty party, both should go: this is not a criminal case (both have immunity!), so the burden should be on them to prove that they did the job.