case.”) (emphasis added). Mr. Reed argues, however, that there was a coercive element in the execution of the waiver given his rocky relationship with the Ohio prison officials. See generally Ortiz II, 947 P.2d at 86 (discussing Mr. Reed’s reputation as an advocate for prisoners’ rights and the resentment expressed by Ohio prison officials). But even if we assume that there was coercion, there is no evidence in the record — indeed, Mr. Reed does not even allege — that the Prosecutor Appellees had or should have had any reason to know that the waiver was signed involuntarily. Because the waiver was facially valid, it was objectively reasonable for the Prosecutor Appellees to rely on the waiver. Cf United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919-20, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>). B. Summary Judgment for BCDC Ap-pellees With
holding that evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not barred by the exclusionary rule recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid holding that when acting pursuant to a valid warrant the police did not violate the fourth amendment by acting outside their jurisdiction in violation of state law holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant