violates [a] mandatory regulation, there will be no shelter from liability because there is no room for choice and the action will be contrary to policy.” United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 324, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991). For example, we have observed that the limitation of an officer’s judgment during a high speed chase — such as the limitation of “the speed of a vehicle in hot pursuit — indicates that the [police department] already had made the decision to limit the officer’s exercise of discretion.” Biscoe v. Arlington Cty., 738 F.2d 1352, 1363 (D.C.Cir.1984). Consequently, “effective law enforcement would not be hindered by enforced adherence to such regulations” through civil liability. Id.; see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1024 (7th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). We see no difference between a prescription
holding that the discretionary function does not apply where the decisionmaker lacks authority holding federal tort claims act discretionary function exception does not apply if prison personnel violate a mandatory regulation recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver holding that the government cannot waive or forfeit an argument that the discretionary function exception to the federal tort claims act ftca should apply holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision 