bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception, including the FBI’s investigation or the entry and search is to be decided as a matter of law by the Court. Fisher Bros. Sales, Inc. v. United States, 46 F.3d 279, 286 (3d Cir.1995). The Third Circuit has clarified that a claim is “based upon” the exercise of a discretionary function “whenever the immediate cause of the plaintiffs injury is a decision which is susceptible of policy analysis and which is made by an official legally authorized to make it.” Id. at 282. Court finds that the plaintiffs’ claims are not based upon the initial invesinvesbut upon the subsequent warrant- less entry and search. See Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 69, 76 5.Ct. 122, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the discretionary function exception
holding that the government is liable under the ftca in the same respect as a private person under the law of the place where the act occurred holding that the united states could be liable under the ftca for the negligent operation of a lighthouse despite the fact that the initial decision to undertake the lighthouse service was discretionary holding that decision to operate lighthouse is discretionary decision while failure to maintain lighthouse is not within discretionary function exception holding that decision to operate a lighthouse service as an aid to navigation is an exercise of discretion holding qualified immunity defense unavailable to the united states in ftca action