RedactedNarrative: This is a 2 vessel accident occurring at an entrance to a no wake zone area in the panther creek area. Both pontoon boats were rented by the same group and they are all friends and worked together at a restaurant. Vessel 1 was traveling parallel with vessel 2 at the entrance to the area. Vessel 1 and vessel 2 were both traveling at a slow speed. Witnesses stated that vessel 1 and 2 were slowly passing one another as if they were racing through the no wake zone still maintaining a slow speed. Vessel 1 then made a right turn into vessel 2 putting his starboard front side of the pontoon into the port side of vessel 2. This in turn caused vessel 2 to lose his course of travel and witnesses stated that vessel 2 almost turned over because of vessel 1's actions. Witnesses further stated that vessel 1 did not let off the throttle while pushing vessel 2. After that action, vessel 2 spun out and had to return to the direction of travel they were heading before the accident and vessel 1 proceeded on. Both pontoons returned back to the panther creek boat dock where they had rented the vessels. The operator of vessel 1's actions appear to be intentional. 
  
  A witness called the boat dock and advised the owner to check for damages of the pontoon rental boats that were returning because of what he witnessed. Prince boat dock owner stated that the damage to the vessels was not there when the boats left the dock to be rented. This damage consisted of a dent to the pontoon and a dent to the skirt of the port side rear of vessel 2. There was no damage to vessel 1 with the exception of rash to the right starboard corner. 
  
  Upon my arrival, both drivers stated that nothing had happened. I noticed an odor of alcoholic beverage on the breath of both drivers, so field sobriety tests were administered by myself and officer. The driver of vessel 2 was not too intoxicated, but the operator of vessel 1appeared to be intoxicated. The operator of vessel 1 was belligerent and raised his voice several times at me telling me to prove something happened. 
  
  After field sobriety was administered, the operator of vessel 1 was arrested for operating while impaired and careless and reckless operation of a motorboat. 
  
  Other witnesses in the boat were cooperative and did admit that a very small and slow collision had taken place but they didn't think that they were responsible for the damages to the vessel. The damages to the vessel were consistent to the accident that was described to me. 
  
  The operator of vessel 1 blew a .0 on the intoximeter 5000 almost 2 and 1/2 hours after accident and magistrate did not find probably cause for arrest for owi. The magistrate did find probable cause for careless and reckless operation. No further investigation is needed in this accident.