News
Tesla Model S police cruiser not to blame for mishap, says Fremont PD
The Fremont Police Department released a statement on Thursday evening clarifying reports that its Tesla Model S cruiser ran out of battery during a high-speed pursuit on Interstate 680.
On Monday, the Tesla Model S gained national attention as a journalist contacted the department requesting information regarding a high-speed chase from the Irvington District of Fremont, California to Washington Boulevard. The chase eventually ended up on Interstate 680, heading south toward San Jose, CA. The journalist released a portion of the police scanner recordings from the chase, where the officer driving the Model S told other units in the pursuit that he would have to abandon due to his battery running low.
However, the suspect then drove onto the shoulder of the interstate, passing a vehicle in an increasingly unsafe manner. The Sargeant of the Fremont PD then made the decision to halt the pursuit of the vehicle as it was becoming more of a public safety risk. All three police units disengaged the vehicle, and the chase was stopped after about 10 miles.
When the Sargeant made the announcement to stop pursuing the vehicle, the Tesla Police Cruiser was at a nearby charging station. The statement from the Fremont PD stated, “at no time did the battery of the Tesla become a factor in our ability to pursue the suspect or perform our duties. This situation, while embarrassing, is no different from cases where a patrol car runs low (or even dry) of fuel.”
Fremont’s statement noted that the journalist who released the initial story contacted the department with questions and subsequently published the article. It reached the national spotlight due to public interest. Fremont Police were sure to clarify the fact that the Tesla having to drop out of the chase could have happened to any vehicle and that they recommend each officer have at least half of a tank of gas or half a battery charge when they begin their shift. “While not policy, we recommend officers begin their shift with at least a half tank of gas or in this case, a battery charge of 50%. On this date, our officer driving the Tesla noted approximately 50% of battery life when he began his shift,” they said. The fact that the vehicle had to stop was in no way the fault of the Model S.
In fact, the department has been so pleased with their Tesla cruiser, they have already had initial talks about buying a second vehicle, most likely a Model X. “So far, the vehicle is performing extremely well, and has exceeded our expectations. We are already in initial conversations about testing a second vehicle, likely an SUV model, and we look forward to providing our initial results in the near future,” Captain Sean Washington said.
The Fremont PD stated that their Model S police cruiser has outperformed their expectations and they are extremely happy with its performance, as they have tracked the performance of the vehicle since its induction into the police force. “Over the last six months, data on range, performance, equipment, and other elements has been gathered by officers through its use as a patrol vehicle. During this time we have documented two police pursuits, where the vehicle met and exceeded expectations.”
Fremont is the location of the original Tesla Factory. The company bought the facility in 2010. Previously, it was the home of General Motors from 1962 to 1982 and eventually, Toyota also produced vehicles there. Tesla and Toyota worked conjunctively to work toward producing electric vehicles. Tesla officially opened the factory as its own on October 27, 2010.
Read the full statement from the Fremont Police Department below:
Our Department has unfortunately been in the news this week for an incident involving our electric police patrol vehicle (Tesla Model S). We first deployed the Tesla in March of this year as a fully outfitted patrol vehicle. Over the first six months, the performance feedback and initial data collection has been very positive and we are in early discussions of expanding the program. During a pursuit last Friday night, the battery charge began to run low, and we’d like the opportunity to clarify and provide additional context with regard to what occurred.
On Friday afternoon, a patrol officer checked out our Tesla patrol vehicle at the start of his shift and noticed the battery was half-charged. A typical battery at full charge ranges from 220-240 miles and during an 11 hour patrol shift, Fremont patrol officers drive approximately 70-90 miles. While not policy, we recommend officers begin their shift with at least a half tank of gas or in this case, a battery charge of 50%. On this date, our officer driving the Tesla noted approximately 50% of battery life when he began his shift. While the vehicle is routinely charged between shifts, on Friday the vehicle had just been returned from our Corporation Yard. The vehicle is regularly returning at the end of every shift with 40-60%, if not more, of the battery charge remaining.
Nine hours into the officer’s shift, at 11:05 p.m., he became involved in a vehicle pursuit that lasted a total of 8 minutes. The pursuit began in our Irvington District and traveled on Washington Blvd., before merging southbound onto I680 towards San Jose. Within minutes, two additional Fremont patrol units were behind the Tesla and in the pursuit. Additionally, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) was notified and responding. As standard protocol, once CHP has sufficient units, they take over our pursuits on the freeway.
The pursuit spanned approximately 10 miles and at times exceeded 110 mph. Regular updates regarding the speed, location, general traffic and roadway conditions were provided by the second officer in the pursuit. Just before the pursuit ended at 11:13 p.m., the officer driving the Tesla responsibly notified his cover units he was going to have to back out of the pursuit because his battery was running low. Just after they passed the Montague Expressway exit, the suspect drove on the left shoulder of the road to pass a vehicle. At that time, the Fremont Police Sergeant monitoring the pursuit gave orders to terminate to ensure public safety. All three units deactivated their emergency equipment and returned to normal driving conditions. At that point, the Tesla was driven to a nearby charging station and the additional Fremont units returned to the City. CHP located the unoccupied vehicle in the area of I680 and the Berryessa exit. At no time did the battery of the Tesla become a factor in our ability to pursue the suspect or perform our duties. This situation, while embarrassing, is no different from cases where a patrol car runs low (or even dry) of fuel.
In recent years police radio traffic has become readily accessible through phone applications and its common practice for news media and even community members to monitor and even record. On Monday, a local journalist contacted our Department requesting additional details regarding the pursuit. The journalist subsequently wrote an article and released a portion of our radio traffic. Since that time, the Department has received numerous media inquiries regarding the vehicle’s battery. Unfortunately, public interest in the original story propelled it into the national spotlight.
Over the last six months, data on range, performance, equipment, and other elements has been gathered by officers through its use as a patrol vehicle. During this time we have documented two police pursuits, where the vehicle met and exceeded expectations. Our final results and data will ultimately help us determine if the EV technology meets current patrolling applications and cost effectiveness. We remain dedicated to our continued research into the benefits of using electric vehicles and the effects they have on our environment. We hope to share our initial data and feedback soon.
Captain Sean Washington stated, “So far, the vehicle is performing extremely well, and has exceeded our expectations. We are already in initial conversations about testing a second vehicle, likely an SUV model, and we look forward to providing our initial results in the near future.”
For more information on our electric vehicle pilot program, visit www.fremontpolice.org/electricvehicle.
SpaceX has revealed the date for the maiden voyage of Starship v3, its newest and most advanced version of the rocket yet.
Starship v3 represents a significant leap forward. At 124 meters tall when fully stacked, it stands taller than previous versions and boasts substantial upgrades.
The vehicle incorporates next-generation Raptor 3 engines, which deliver higher thrust, improved reliability, and simplified designs with fewer parts. Both the Super Heavy booster (Booster 19) and the Starship upper stage (Ship 39) feature these enhancements, along with structural improvements for greater payload capacity—exceeding 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit in reusable configuration.
SpaceX and its CEO Elon Musk have announced that the company aims to push the first launch of Starship v3 this Thursday. Musk included some clips of past Starship launches with the announcement.
Now targeting launch as early as Thursday, May 21 → https://t.co/2gZQUxS6mm
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) May 19, 2026
First Starship V3 launch later this week! pic.twitter.com/JFX4CrSfnY
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 19, 2026
There are a lot of improvements to Starship v3 from past builds. Key hardware changes include a more robust heat shield, upgraded avionics, and modifications optimized for orbital refueling, a critical technology for future missions to the Moon and Mars. This flight marks the first launch from Starbase’s second orbital pad, allowing parallel operations and accelerating the cadence of tests.
This will be the 12th Starship launch for SpaceX. Flight 12 objectives include a full ascent profile, hot-staging separation, in-space engine relights, and reentry testing. The booster is expected to perform a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, while the ship will deploy 20 Starlink simulator satellites and a pair of modified Starlink V3 units before attempting reentry.
Success would validate V3’s design for operational use, paving the way for rapid reusability and higher flight rates.
The rapid evolution from V2 to V3 underscores SpaceX’s iterative approach. Previous flights demonstrated booster catches, ship landings, and heat shield advancements. V3 builds on these with nearly every component refined, supported by an expanding production line at Starbase that churns out vehicles at an unprecedented pace.
Starship V3 is here putting SpaceX closer to Mars than it has ever been
This launch comes amid growing momentum for SpaceX’s ambitious goals. Starship is central to NASA’s Artemis program for lunar landings and Elon Musk’s vision of making humanity multiplanetary. A successful V3 debut would boost confidence in achieving orbital refueling and crewed missions in the coming years.
As excitement builds, enthusiasts and engineers alike await liftoff. Weather and technical readiness will determine the exact timing, but the community is optimistic. Starship V3 is poised to push the boundaries of spaceflight once again, bringing reusable interplanetary transport closer to reality.
Elon Musk broke his silence regarding the jury decision to throw out the case against OpenAI and Sam Altman. The Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI frontman has already indicated that an appeal will be filed regarding the decision, which went against him yesterday.
A Federal jury dismissed this high-profile lawsuit after less than two hours of deliberation due to a statute-of-limitations issue.
In a strongly worded post on X on May 18, Musk addressed the federal jury’s dismissal of his high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI, vowing to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision, according to Musk, was centered not on the substantive claims but on a statute-of-limitations technicality.
Musk’s lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused OpenAI co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of breaching the organization’s original nonprofit mission. OpenAI was established in 2015 as a non-profit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of all humanity, with Musk as a key early donor and co-founder before departing in 2018.
Musk alleged that Altman and Brockman improperly shifted the company toward a for-profit model, enriched themselves through massive valuations and partnerships (including with Microsoft), and betrayed founding agreements.
In his post, Musk emphasized that the judge and jury “never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.” He stated unequivocally: “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!”
Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.
There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
Musk argued that allowing such actions to stand without review sets a dangerous precedent. “I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America,” he wrote. He reiterated OpenAI’s founding purpose: “OpenAI was founded to benefit all of humanity.”
The jury’s unanimous advisory verdict found that Musk’s claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment were filed outside California’s three-year statute of limitations. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers adopted the finding and dismissed the case. OpenAI hailed the outcome as vindication, while Musk’s legal team immediately signaled plans to appeal.
The trial, which featured testimony from Musk, Altman, Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and others, exposed deep rifts in Silicon Valley over AI’s direction.
Musk has long warned that profit-driven AI development, especially with closed models and powerful corporate ties, risks endangering humanity—contrasting it with OpenAI’s original open, safety-focused charter. OpenAI countered that the suit stemmed from business rivalry and that Musk himself had explored for-profit paths earlier.
Musk’s appeal could prolong the saga, potentially affecting OpenAI’s valuation (reportedly over $800 billion) and IPO ambitions. Supporters view his stance as defending nonprofit integrity, while critics see it as sour grapes from a competitor whose own xAI is racing in the AI arena.
Regardless of the legal outcome, the case has spotlighted critical questions about trust, governance, and mission drift in the rapidly evolving AI industry. Musk’s willingness to fight on suggests this chapter is far from closed, with broader implications for how charitable organizations—and the tech giants born from them—operate in the future.
Elon Musk
NASA updated Artemis III and SpaceX’s role just got more complicated
SpaceX’s Starship is the key to NASA’s Moon plan and the timeline is already slipping.
SpaceX has been at the center of NASA’s Moon ambitions for five years, and the updated Artemis III plan recently released by NASA makes that relationship more visible than ever. In April 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.89 billion contract to develop the Starship Human Landing System, selecting it as the sole provider to land astronauts on the Moon under Artemis III. Blue Origin filed legal protests, lost, and eventually received its own contract, but SpaceX was always the program’s primary lander contractor.
The original plan called for Starship to land two astronauts on the lunar south pole. That mission slipped as Starship development ran behind schedule, and in February 2026, NASA officially revised the Artemis III architecture entirely. The mission will now remain in low Earth orbit and serve as a crewed rendezvous and docking test between the Orion spacecraft and both the SpaceX Starship HLS pathfinder and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 2 pathfinder, with the actual Moon landing pushed to Artemis IV in 2028.
What makes SpaceX’s position particularly significant is the direct line between this week’s Starship V3 launch and the Artemis timeline. The Starship HLS is essentially a modified version of the V3 upper stage, meaning SpaceX cannot realistically prepare a lander for a 2027 docking test until it has demonstrated that the base vehicle flies reliably at scale. Flight 12, targeting this week, is the first data point in that sequence.
NASA has spent nearly $7 billion on Human Landing System development since awarding contracts to SpaceX and Blue Origin in 2021 and 2023, and NASA administrator Jared Isaacman has indicated a desire to drive down costs going forward. As Teslarati reported, before Starship HLS can put anyone on the Moon it has to solve a problem no rocket has demonstrated at scale, which is refueling in orbit, requiring approximately ten tanker launches worth of propellant loaded into a depot before the lander has enough fuel to reach the lunar surface.
The Artemis III mission described by NASA is essentially a stress test for every system that needs to work before any of that happens.
SpaceX has gone from a launch contractor to the single most critical hardware provider in America’s return-to-the-Moon program. With an IPO targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation and Elon Musk’s compensation tied directly to Mars colonization, the pressure on every Starship milestone between now and 2028 has never been higher.
SpaceX reveals date for maiden Starship v3 launch
Elon Musk breaks silence on OpenAI trial decision
