RedactedNarrative: On June 18th, 2015 at approximately 1015 hours, I, Officer of the Maryland Natural Resources Police, received a call from Odyssea Watersports who stated there had just been a minor collision between two of his jet skis. I arrived on scene at approximately 1030 hours and spoke with subject who advised that two of his skis had been damaged in a collision, and that the damage was estimated to be a little over $2100. Subject also stated that one of his guides from shore had witnessed the accident and had written a statement; however, the two renters had differing stories as to what happened. 
  
  At this time, I separated both parties and spoke with the operator of ski #6: Operator2 stated that he had rented ski #6, and had his 9 year old son on the ski for most of the trip. Just prior to the collision, he had his son jump on another ski so that he could operate the ski by himself. He was operating it an area outside the buoys which signified the meeting zone for the group. Operator2 stated that he had seen the guides calling everyone in to the meeting zone, so he began to let off the throttle slightly. He then traveled straight to meet with the other skis in front of him, while still remaining slightly on the throttle. He stated he was approximately 400 feet away from the other skis when he saw V1 make a quick cut to the left-right in front of him. At this time, Operator2 let off the throttle completely, and yelled to the operator on V1 just prior to impact. He stated that V1 was traveling the same speed at the time, then it suddenly"hooked to the left," and turned into Operator2's path. Operator2 also stated that both he, and the operator of V1 were thrown off their PWCs and into the water. 
  
  I then spoke with 16 year old operator1, who was accompanied by his father. Operator1 stated that he had been following the ski in front him, operating at approximately 6-7 MPH, when he was suddenly struck by ski #6 who was coming in from the bay at a very high rate of speed. Operator1 claims that he did not see Operator2 traveling toward him prior to impact, but later stated that he turned his head to the left and saw the ski coming at high rate of speed.  
   
   After speaking with both operators, I then spoke with the guide who had witnessed the accident. Guide stated that V1 was preparing to enter their channel following behind the other skis in the channel, when ski #6 came full throttle as if to overtake on the port side of V1. As ski #6 was coming in close proximity, V1 made a quick left, and couldn't avoid being impacted by ski #6. Guide advised ski #6 was going too fast to slow down prior to impacting the port side of V1. 
  
  When looking at the damage to both vessels, I observed V1 to have scrapes and cracks to fiberglass hull on the portside bow-near the registration stickers, which is believed to be the point of impact from ski #6. Also, there is a secondary crack on the port side stern of the ski, which may have been caused by a secondary point of impact with ski #6. Ski #6 showed a large crack to the bow of the vessel toward the starboard side running from the middle of the vessel toward the starboard gunwale. 
  
  Based on the damage to both vessels, as well as the statements obtained from all parties involved, it is apparent that ski #6 was attempting to overtake ski# 2 at a high rate of speed, and did not make any attempt to change speed or course to avoid collision, or keep out of the way of V1. In addition, V1 failed to maintain a stead course and speed in that he had changed his direction just prior to impact. Because of this, I charged both operators with Rules of the Road violations (NR 8-704 08.18.01.04a), and found them both at fault for the accident. 
  
  Operator1 was issued the following citation: RULES OF THE ROAD, RULE 17-ACTION BY STAND-ON VESSEL.
  Operator2 was issued the following citation: RULES OF THE ROAD, RULE 13-OVERTAKING VESSEL. 
   
  After issuing said citations, I advised Operator2 and Operator1 that we