By Abraham Elmazahi, Esq.Yes. If you are using Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Florida, you should assume you can still be arrested and prosecuted for DUI.
The name of the technology does not rewrite Florida's DUI statute. Section 316.193, Florida Statutes, applies when a person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired or while at or above the statutory alcohol level. The State therefore does not always need to prove that a defendant was manually steering a moving car.
The harder legal questions begin when technology moves beyond driver assistance into a vehicle that is genuinely capable of operating without a human driver. Florida has a separate autonomous-vehicle statute for that situation. The interaction between that statute and DUI law has not yet been squarely resolved in a reported Florida appellate DUI decision.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) Is Not an Autonomous Chauffeur
Tesla currently calls the feature Full Self-Driving (Supervised). Tesla's own current materials expressly state that FSD (Supervised) does not make the vehicle autonomous and requires a fully attentive driver who is ready to take over at any time.
For DUI purposes, current FSD (Supervised) should not be treated as a designated driver. A driver cannot reasonably go to sleep, become too impaired to take over, or assume the software has legally replaced the human behind the wheel.
Florida appellate law also provides useful context. In Tesla, Inc. v. Banner, 411 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), the Fourth District described the older Enhanced Autopilot system involved in that civil case as SAE Level 2 driver assistance that could not drive the vehicle autonomously. Current FSD (Supervised) is a different and more advanced product, but Tesla still tells drivers today that the vehicle is not autonomous and that driver attention remains required.
Florida DUI Does Not Require Proof the Car Was Moving
Florida's DUI statute is broader than the word driving. Section 316.193(1) covers a person who is either driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle.
Florida's standard DUI jury instruction defines actual physical control to mean that the defendant is physically in or on the vehicle and has the capability to operate it, regardless of whether the defendant is actually operating it at that moment.
That rule is why a DUI case can exist even when an officer never sees the vehicle move. It is also why "the computer was driving" is not automatically a defense. The defense has to examine the actual technology, the person's position and capability, what the vehicle was doing, and what evidence proves who had practical control.
What If FSD Is Steering and Accelerating?
With current Tesla FSD (Supervised), the better practical assumption is that DUI exposure remains. The human selects the trip, occupies the driver's position, is expected to supervise the system, and must be able to take over immediately. The fact that software is handling steering or speed at a particular moment does not create a recognized Florida DUI safe harbor.
No reported Florida appellate decision has held that engaging Tesla FSD (Supervised) prevents the State from proving driving or actual physical control. A prosecutor would also have obvious evidence arguments if the driver was seated behind the wheel, had access to the controls, initiated the trip, and was expected by the system itself to remain capable of intervention.
That does not mean every technology-assisted DUI case is identical. The exact software version, driver-monitoring state, vehicle logs, mode engaged, seat position, ability to take over, and how law enforcement encountered the car can all matter.
What About a Truly Driverless Vehicle?
Florida has specifically authorized autonomous vehicles. Sections 316.003(3) and 316.85 distinguish an automated driving system from ordinary driver assistance and allow a fully autonomous vehicle to operate without a human operator physically present.
Section 316.85(3)(a) goes further: when an automated driving system is engaged, the system is deemed the operator of the autonomous vehicle for purposes of chapter 316 unless the context otherwise requires.
That language makes the hypothetical "robotaxi DUI" more complicated than the current Tesla FSD question. If the vehicle is genuinely operating through a qualifying automated driving system and the human occupant is only a passenger, the statutory operator provision may matter substantially.
But DUI law separately reaches actual physical control. Florida's appellate courts have not yet published a DUI decision squarely deciding how section 316.85's operator rule interacts with section 316.193 when an impaired human occupant of a truly autonomous vehicle still has some ability to command, stop, redirect, or take control of the vehicle. That issue should not be presented as settled law.
Actual Physical Control: Why the Driver's Seat Still Matters
Florida courts have repeatedly applied actual-physical-control law to vehicles that were not moving.
In State v. Fitzgerald, 63 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), an intoxicated defendant was sitting in the driver's seat of a parked car and readily produced the keys. The Second District held that the State could proceed because actual physical control turns on being physically in the vehicle with the capability to operate it, not on proof that the vehicle was moving at that moment.
In Fieselman v. State, 537 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the defendant was asleep lying across the front seat of a parked car with the engine off, but the key was in the ignition. The court held that those circumstances could support an inference of actual physical control. And in Lamore v. State, 983 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), the defendant was found slumped over in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition and actually started the engine after being awakened.
Those cases predate modern driver-assistance systems, but the principle they apply remains current: movement is not the only path to a DUI prosecution.
Could You Get a DUI While Sleeping in a Parked Tesla?
Potentially, yes. A parked vehicle does not automatically eliminate DUI exposure. If an impaired person is in or on the vehicle and has the practical capability to operate it, Florida's actual-physical-control doctrine can become the central issue.
That does not mean every person who responsibly decides not to drive and sleeps in a vehicle is automatically guilty of DUI. Seat position, access to the vehicle's controls, key or phone access, operability, where the vehicle is parked, whether the person could readily put it in motion, and evidence about how the vehicle arrived there can all matter.
The parked-car question deserves its own analysis because the facts can change the legal posture considerably. The important point here is narrower: using FSD or stopping the Tesla does not by itself erase the actual-physical-control issue.
What Evidence Would Matter in a Tesla DUI Case?
A technology-assisted DUI case may produce more digital evidence than a conventional DUI. Depending on the facts and what can lawfully be obtained, the defense may need to evaluate:
- which Tesla driving-assistance mode was actually engaged;
- vehicle and event logs showing speed, steering, braking, route, and system engagement;
- driver-monitoring or cabin-camera information, if available and lawfully obtained;
- body-camera and dash-camera recordings from law enforcement;
- where the person was seated and whether the person could operate or override the vehicle;
- phone, key-card, or key access to the vehicle;
- the vehicle's location and whether it was moving, parked, or stopped in a traffic lane;
- statements about who initiated the trip, who had been driving, and why the vehicle stopped; and
- breath, blood, urine, field-sobriety, and observational evidence offered to prove impairment.
The technology does not replace ordinary DUI analysis. It adds another layer of proof that should be preserved and tested.
Request Consultation
If a DUI arrest involves Tesla FSD, Autopilot, another driver-assistance system, or a dispute about who was actually driving or controlling the vehicle, the vehicle data and encounter evidence can matter early.
Prospective clients may submit a consultation request through the firm's secure consultation form. Existing clients should use The Elmazahi Client Center for case communications.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. DUI and autonomous-vehicle questions are fact-specific, technology changes quickly, and Florida courts have not yet resolved every issue created by modern automated-driving systems.
No Attorney-Client Relationship
Reading this article or submitting information through the website does not create an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship is formed only through a written agreement with The Elmazahi Firm, P.A.