On 11/7/13, I, Officer of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) were on water patrol in Martin County, FL. At approximately 1700 hours, we were dispatched to a boating accident at Loggerhead Marina. Upon arrival at Loggerhead Marina at approximately 1710 hours, we met with complainant. Subject advised us that he was the owner of Trouble Maker (Vessel 1). At the time of the boating accident, he was inside the restaurant where he works, which is located adjacent to the docks. Subject advised us that at the time of the incident, subject2 was working aboard the Trouble Maker. Subject2 advised me that he saw vessel BTIII (Vessel 2) enter Loggerhead Marina at a high rate of speed, causing the Trouble Maker to slap into the dock. Upon inspection, I observed scuff marks on the starboard side towards the bow where it made contact with the dock. I also observed wood and rub rail damage towards the stern of the vessel. I estimated the total damage of Vessel 1 to be around $2,000. At this time, I obtained a sworn written statement from Subject2 documenting the incident. 
    Subject2 pointed to the dock slip where was BTIII was located. I attempted to make contact with the owner aboard BTIII. However, no one was aboard BTIII at this time. Dispatch was able to locate a phone number for the owner of BTIII. I made contact with Subject3 by phone to advise him of the situation. Subject3 advised me that he entered Loggerhead Marina somewhere between 2 and 3 PM. I asked him if he entered the marina at a high rate of speed as the marina is a slow speed/ minimum wake zone. Subject3 advised me that he did not believe he entered the marina at a high rate of speed. When I advised him that I had witnesses who saw his vessel enter Loggerhead Marina at a high rate of speed, he again denied it. I advised Subject3 that I was required by law to document this incident in the form of a boat accident report. I also advised him that when his vessel entered the marina, there was a vessel that reported wake damage. Subject3 again denied causing any wake damage.
    After speaking to Subject3 on the phone, I again made contact with Subject. At this time, Subject advised me that there was another vessel who claimed damage due to the wake of BTIII. Subject also advised me that the dock master working at the time witnessed the incident. Due to the hour of the night, I advised Subject that I would return the following day to speak with witness and the owner of second damaged vessel.
FORT PIERCE