that because “federal regulations expressly give prison officials discretion in how to respond to reports of threats!,].... it must be presumed that the officials’ choices in responding to the report of [an inmate’s] threat were based in public policy”). Even absent that presumption, the FBI conduct challenged here clearly involves the type of policy judgment protected by the discretionary function exception. The investigation of crime involves policy judgments at the core of the executive branch. In investigations, no less than prosecutions, the executive must consider the reliability of the information, the relative importance of the crime, and the agency’s mission and resources. See Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 800 F.2d 1187, 1193, 1198 (D.C.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). As the Guidelines make evident, any agent
recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver holding that where discretionary function exception of  2680a applied district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over cause of action holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision  holding that where fbi allegedly received warnings that something might happen and failed to make adequate plans to prevent a violent confrontation on native american land the discretionary function exception applied because law enforcement personnel receive warnings rumors and threats all the time and are constantly required to assess the reliability of the information they receive and to allocate scarce personnel resources accordingly holding federal tort claims act discretionary function exception does not apply if prison personnel violate a mandatory regulation