FWC Says Fisherman Tried to Dump Illegal Catch Before Inspection

A routine fish-and-wildlife inspection at Phil Foster Park in Riviera Beach quickly became more serious when a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officer said he watched an angler reach into a container and throw a fish over the bridge as he approached.

The encounter, shown in bodycam footage presented by the YouTube channel Arrest Cam Fish and Wildlife, began after a concerned fisherman reported that two people were keeping multiple fish that appeared to be undersized or otherwise illegal to possess.

According to the channel’s narrator, both men were ultimately charged with failing to keep tropical ornamental marine life species alive and were cited for fishing without a valid license, while one of them, identified in the video as Akion, also faced a charge of interfering with or obstructing an FWC officer because of the alleged attempt to discard a fish before it could be inspected.

Officer Says He Saw a Fish Thrown From the Bridge

The FWC officer had barely reached the anglers when he immediately ordered them not to throw anything away.

“Don’t throw the fish,” he called out, repeating the command as one of the men apparently continued toward the edge of the bridge.

The officer warned that interfering with his inspection could itself result in a misdemeanor charge and made clear that he had already seen what happened.

“You know throwing the fish don’t work, right?” he asked after approaching the men.

When Akion did not immediately explain what had been thrown, the officer said it would not change his response because he had personally watched him reach into a bucket and throw something over the bridge.

The officer later emphasized that the anglers had already been observed for an extended period before he arrived, telling them that someone had been watching their activity for roughly an hour to an hour and a half.

That detail mattered because the encounter was not based only on what remained visible after the officer walked up. According to his account, another fisherman had already reported what the two men were doing, giving FWC a reason to inspect their catch more closely.

Trying to dispose of an item during an inspection can turn a relatively simple wildlife violation into a larger legal problem, especially when an officer has already seen the conduct. In this case, the alleged attempt to get rid of a fish became one of the most consequential parts of the encounter.

Fish Had Been Hidden Inside a McDonald’s Bag

As the officer inspected the anglers’ belongings, he pointed to several fish that had been placed inside a McDonald’s bag and began asking who had caught them.

Neither man gave a clear answer at first.

One said he thought the fish had belonged to someone who was there before them, while the officer repeatedly asked which of the two had actually harvested the catch.

He then began examining the species individually and explained that at least some of the fish could not legally be kept for food.

The officer specifically focused on parrotfish, which he described as regulated marine life species.

“You can’t have them at all for food,” he told the men.

According to the officer, the regulations allowed those fish to be taken only under rules governing marine-life collection, meaning they had to be kept alive for aquarium purposes rather than killed and placed into a bag as food.

“These need to be alive,” he explained. “The only way you can keep these is if you’re going to put them in an aquarium.”

The fact that the fish were hidden inside a fast-food bag also drew the officer’s attention. He questioned why someone who genuinely did not know whether a species could be kept would place it out of sight rather than openly asking about the regulations.

That did not by itself prove intent, but combined with the fish allegedly being thrown from the bridge, it understandably made the officer more skeptical of the men’s explanation.

Phil Foster Park Carried Additional Restrictions

The officer also explained that Phil Foster Park is a marine life sanctuary area, meaning the rules there were more restrictive than at many ordinary fishing locations.

He told the anglers that harvesting protected marine life in the sanctuary could bring enhanced penalties.

Even outside the sanctuary, however, the officer said the parrotfish in question still could not be killed for food under the marine-life rules he was enforcing.

He measured one of the other fish and discussed minimum-size requirements, allowing an apparently legal fish to be returned to the bucket once it met the required measurement.

The bodycam footage therefore showed the officer going species by species rather than treating everything the men possessed as automatically illegal.

That distinction is important because fishing regulations can vary considerably by species, size, location, season, and intended use. The encounter was not simply about catching fish at Phil Foster Park, but about whether each particular fish had been harvested and kept according to those rules.

The officer later recommended that the men download a fishing-regulations application that could identify species and display rules based on the user’s location.

If someone is unsure whether a fish can legally be kept, checking before placing it in a cooler or bag is far safer than finding out during an enforcement inspection.

Neither Angler Had a Valid Fishing License

The officer also asked both men whether they had fishing licenses.

One said he had previously possessed one but believed it had expired, while the other said he did not have one.

Both were issued citations for fishing without a valid license.

The officer explained that the license citation carried a $55 fine and could be paid within 30 days, although the men could also choose to contest it.

The more serious fish-related citations were treated differently because the officer described those violations as second-degree misdemeanors requiring a court appearance.

He repeatedly told the men that signing the paperwork was not an admission of guilt, but only confirmation that they had received the citations.

The officer also said he had discretion in how he handled some situations and suggested that straightforward cooperation might have produced a different result.

“The biggest thing for me is the throwing the fish and the hiding the fish,” he said.

He told them that if they had simply admitted what they possessed and explained that they did not understand the rules, he might have considered issuing a warning instead.

That comment reflected a practical point that goes beyond fishing enforcement: attempting to conceal evidence often makes an officer view an otherwise correctable violation much more seriously.

Akion Received an Additional Obstruction Charge

The officer issued Akion a separate citation for interfering with or obstructing an FWC officer because he allegedly threw the fish from the bridge during the inspection.

When Akion asked what that charge could mean, the officer explained that it was also written as a second-degree misdemeanor and would require him to appear in court.

The officer said the eventual outcome would depend on the judge, prior history, and other circumstances, adding that such cases often ended with fines based on his experience, although he made clear that he could not speak for the court.

The second angler was not given the obstruction charge.

Instead, both men faced the marine-life violation and fishing-license citation, while Akion had the additional allegation related to the discarded fish.

The officer remained relatively calm throughout the encounter, explaining each rule, answering questions about the fines, and showing the men how they could avoid similar problems in the future.

That educational approach was notable because the encounter began with conduct the officer clearly found frustrating. Rather than ending only with citations, he spent several minutes explaining why the fish had to remain alive and how to check regulations before fishing again.

Both Men Entered Pre-Trial Diversion

The Arrest Cam Fish and Wildlife narrator said both individuals later entered pre-trial diversion programs.

Each was ordered to pay $350 in costs and fees related to the criminal charges, and after those amounts were paid, the charges were dropped.

That outcome meant neither man ultimately received a conviction on the misdemeanor fish-related charges described in the video.

The fishing-license citations were handled separately.

According to the channel, court records showed that Akion had not yet paid his $55 fishing-without-a-license fine at the time the video was produced.

The video did not provide additional details about the second man’s license citation beyond stating that both were initially cited.

The diversion outcome also shows that wildlife cases do not always end with the harshest available punishment. Courts can sometimes resolve lower-level offenses through fees, education, compliance requirements, or diversion rather than a traditional conviction.

Inspection Became About More Than the Fish

What began as a report about allegedly illegal fish ultimately became a broader lesson in how quickly a wildlife inspection can escalate when someone appears to interfere with an officer.

The FWC officer said he had already received information from another fisherman, watched Akion throw something from the bridge, found parrotfish hidden inside a McDonald’s bag, and learned that neither angler had a current license.

The fish themselves resulted in misdemeanor citations, but the alleged attempt to discard part of the catch added a separate obstruction accusation that could likely have been avoided.

At the same time, the officer’s explanation made clear that not every violation appeared to involve deliberate poaching. Some of the conversation suggested the anglers did not fully understand the regulations governing marine ornamental species or the special status of Phil Foster Park.

That uncertainty is precisely why anglers are expected to know the rules before keeping a fish.

By the end of the encounter, both men had court dates, license citations, and instructions on how to check Florida fishing regulations in the future, while Akion faced the added allegation that he had tried to get rid of evidence just as the FWC officer arrived.

The criminal charges were eventually dropped after both men completed pre-trial diversion and paid the required costs, but the bodycam footage showed that the attempt to avoid an inspection did little to make the original problem disappear.