Investigators say the officer knew of a positive test months before the relationship at issue began.
PENSACOLA, Fla. — The felony charge against Pensacola police officer Pierce Cotton rests on a specific Florida law that does not require a public health emergency or a confirmed transmission, but instead focuses on disclosure before sex.
Under Florida Statute 384.24(2), a person with HIV may not have sexual intercourse without first informing the other person of the infection and obtaining consent if that person knows of the diagnosis and has been informed the disease can be communicated through sexual intercourse. Investigators say Cotton, 32, failed to do that with a woman who later became pregnant. Their evidence, according to the arrest report, includes medical records, the woman’s account and statements Cotton allegedly made after she learned something was wrong.
That legal framework gives the case its shape. Police do not need to prove, at least at the charging stage, that the woman became infected or that the baby was infected. The public record released so far does not say either happened. Instead, the issue is whether Cotton knew he had HIV, had been told it could be transmitted through sex, and then had sexual intercourse without telling the woman first. Investigators say the medical timeline begins with a blood specimen collected July 11, 2025, and a positive result dated July 15, 2025. They say the relationship with the woman began in October 2025. If those dates hold up in court, prosecutors may argue they show prior knowledge before the relationship at issue started.
The woman’s account fills in the alleged failure to disclose. According to the arrest report, she did not learn of the diagnosis before the sexual relationship began. The report says another woman who had a child with Cotton contacted her after learning of the pregnancy and urged her to get tested. When the pregnant woman confronted Cotton, police say he admitted only that he was “sick” before allegedly making a series of reassuring statements. The report says he told her, “I can’t transmit it,” and insisted she did not have HIV because she had already been tested. He also allegedly told her the baby could not get it from him. Whether those statements were accurate in any medical sense is not the legal point identified in the charge. The legal point is that the statements, according to police, came after the relationship was underway.
Because the law is written around disclosure and consent, the arrest report reads more like a timeline than a broad moral accusation. Dates matter. Sequence matters. Knowledge matters. The precise content of a conversation matters. So does what can be shown through records rather than memory alone. That is why the police report highlights the lab dates and the woman’s description of how she learned of the diagnosis. It also explains why the charge could be filed even though the public record does not identify any confirmed transmission. In this type of case, the statute itself narrows the dispute to a small set of questions, and investigators appear to have organized their case around those questions.
Outside the criminal case, the consequences moved quickly. Cotton was arrested March 13, booked into jail at 10:25 a.m. and released just before 1 p.m. on $10,000 bond, according to local reporting and jail information cited by news outlets. The Pensacola Police Department said he was placed on administrative leave and that internal affairs had opened an investigation. The department did not provide detail beyond confirming the arrest under the statute and saying no further information would be released at that time. That limited statement left the public with the legal outline but not much about the department’s internal response beyond leave status and an ongoing review.
The case now heads toward arraignment, where the charge will formally move into court. At later stages, attorneys may dispute the handling of medical records, the meaning of the alleged text messages and whether the state can prove the notice elements required by the statute. They may also argue over what details should remain sealed or confidential because of the medical information involved. For now, the law itself remains the clearest guide to why the case was filed: police say the diagnosis came first, the relationship came later, and disclosure did not occur when Florida law required it.
Author note: Last updated April 13, 2026.