necessary jurisdictional facts. S.R.P. ex rel. Abunabba v. United States, 676 F.3d 329, 344-45 (3d.Cir.2012). The government argues that the discretionary function exception bars the plaintiffs’ claims because they arose from the FBI’s investigation, which the Third Circuit has deemed a discretionary activity. See Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3d Cir.1986) (noting that “Congress did not intend to provide for judicial review of the quality of investigative efforts”). In response, the plaintiffs argue that they are not basing their claims on the FBI’s investigation, but on their entry and search, which was done without a search warrant, in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. See Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 205-06, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Whether the plaintiffs’ claims are “based
holding that absent exigent circumstances an arrest within the home can only be effectuated with a warrant probable cause is insufficient holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant holding that in die absence of exigent circumstances the mere existence of probable cause does not justify a nonconsensual entry by police into a home without an arrest or search warrant holding that in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances a law enforcement officer must procure a search warrant before searehing for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party