The case centers on when the woman learned of his diagnosis and how police say they confirmed it.

PENSACOLA, Fla. — A Pensacola police officer has been charged with a felony after investigators said he had sex with a woman without telling her he had HIV, then disclosed it only after she became pregnant and questioned him about alarming medication and his health.

Pierce Cotton, 32, was arrested March 13 and accused of violating a Florida law that bars a person who knows they have HIV from having sexual intercourse without first informing the other person and obtaining consent. The woman, identified in records as a Pensacola Police Department employee, later contacted police. The department placed Cotton on administrative leave and opened an internal affairs investigation, turning a private relationship into a criminal and workplace matter with immediate consequences for both his job and the department’s credibility.

According to the arrest report, Cotton and the woman began dating in October 2025. Investigators say the relationship moved forward without any disclosure that he was HIV-positive. Months later, after the woman became pregnant, another woman who had previously had a child with Cotton contacted her and said she was worried about her health and the health of the unborn baby. The report says that warning led the pregnant woman to ask Cotton direct questions. He first told her, “I’m sick,” and then, after more discussion, claimed he could not transmit the virus. In the report, investigators said Cotton told her, “You don’t have it, since you’ve already been tested for it,” and also said, “You and the baby can’t get it from me.” Police say those statements came after the relationship had already become the basis for the criminal allegation.

The case then shifted from suspicion to documentation. Investigators said the woman came forward after speaking with Cotton, and police obtained medical records that they say showed a prior HIV test and diagnosis. The arrest report describes a serum specimen collected July 11, 2025, with a positive result dated July 15, 2025. That timeline is central to the charge because prosecutors would need to show not only that Cotton had HIV, but that he knew it and had been informed he could communicate it to another person through sexual intercourse before the conduct alleged in the case. Police records made public so far do not say whether the woman contracted HIV, whether the baby was infected, or whether any additional alleged victims have been identified. Those remain major unknowns. The department also has not publicly released more detail about how investigators obtained the medical records or whether the woman’s account was supported by texts beyond the exchange described in the report.

The public record in the case is narrow but significant. Florida Statute 384.24(2) makes it unlawful for a person with HIV, when that person knows of the infection and has been informed it may be transmitted through sexual intercourse, to have sex unless the other person has been informed and has consented. The charge filed against Cotton is a third-degree felony. In local reports, police confirmed that Cotton was booked into jail at 10:25 a.m. on March 13 and released shortly before 1 p.m. on a $10,000 bond. That same day, the department said he had been placed on administrative leave and that internal affairs had opened a separate investigation. Those two tracks matter for different reasons: the criminal case will test the allegation under state law, while the internal review will examine whether an officer’s alleged conduct violated departmental standards, regardless of what happens in court.

For Pensacola police, the arrest created an unusual and awkward scene because the accused was not an outsider but one of their own. The department’s public statement was brief, naming the charge, confirming the leave decision and saying no further details would be released while the internal inquiry continues. That restraint is typical in an active personnel matter, but it also leaves large gaps around how the agency handled the arrest internally and whether supervisors had any prior knowledge of Cotton’s circumstances. The woman’s role as a department employee adds another layer, because the case now touches not only criminal law and personal disclosure, but the internal culture of a law enforcement agency where coworkers may have overlapping professional and private ties. In that setting, even a small number of disclosed facts can carry broad institutional weight.

The immediate next step is in court. Cotton was scheduled for arraignment in April, and the outcome there could determine whether the case moves quickly toward plea discussions or into a longer fight over records, notice and proof of disclosure. Prosecutors are likely to focus on the timing of the medical records and the woman’s account of when she learned of his diagnosis. The defense, if it contests the case, may challenge how the law applies to the facts or the strength of proof that the required notice did not occur. For now, the case stands at an early stage, with the criminal count filed, the officer out on bond and the department still conducting its own review.

Author note: Last updated April 13, 2026.