acting within his discretionary authority.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir.2003). It is clear that Sergeant Lanphere was acting within his discretionary authority during the events at issue in this case. See, e.g., Horton v. Williams, No. 2:06cv526-MHT, 2008 WL 3918065, at *4 (M.D.Ala. Aug. 27, 2008) (noting that it was undisputed that investigator “was acting within his discretionary authority when he filed an affidavit in support of an arrest warrant that led to [the plaintiffs] arrest and prosecution”); cf. Herren v. Bowyer, 850 F.2d 1543, 1545 n. 5 (11th Cir.1988) (agreeing with district court’s rejection of argument that sheriff was not performing discretionary function in case involving probable cause to arrest); Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936, 937 (Fla.1985) (<HOLDING>). “Once a defendant establishes that he was
holding that the decision of whether to enforce the law by making an arrest is a basic judgmental or discretionary governmental function holding that decision to operate lighthouse is discretionary decision while failure to maintain lighthouse is not within discretionary function exception holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision  recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver holding that the extent of government supervision is a discretionary function of the most basic kind