A pregnant woman went to police after another mother told her to get tested, investigators say.
PENSACOLA, Fla. — A warning from another woman who had previously had a child with a Pensacola police officer set off the chain of events that led to his felony arrest on allegations that he failed to disclose he had HIV before sex.
That sequence is the heart of the case against Pierce Cotton, 32. Police records say the woman who was pregnant with his child did not learn of his diagnosis from him at the start of their relationship. Instead, the report says, another mother reached out after learning about the pregnancy and urged caution. What followed was a confrontation, an account of damaging text exchanges, a police report and the release of medical records that investigators say showed a positive HIV result months before the relationship began.
In the report, the earlier partner appears first as the person who interrupted what had looked like an ordinary relationship. Cotton and the pregnant woman had begun dating in October 2025, police said. At some point after she became pregnant, the other woman contacted her and said she had found medication in Cotton’s belongings that she considered alarming. The report says she told the pregnant woman she was concerned for both her health and the health of the unborn baby and advised her to get tested, though she did not initially explain the full reason for that concern. That warning altered the direction of the relationship. The pregnant woman then confronted Cotton. According to the arrest report, he responded first by saying, “I’m sick,” then followed with assurances that he could not pass the virus on. Police say he texted that it was “under control” and claimed, “You can’t contract it.”
Those alleged statements are not the same as the crime charged, but they help explain how investigators say the disclosure unfolded. Florida’s law is aimed at whether a person who knows they have HIV informs a sexual partner before intercourse and obtains consent. The woman’s account, as summarized by police, is that this did not happen. Investigators say Cotton later tried to reassure her after the fact, telling her, “I can’t transmit it,” and adding that she and the baby could not get it from him. Public records released so far do not address whether he was under treatment, what his viral status was at the time or whether any physician had discussed transmission risk with him beyond the notice described in the statute. They also do not say whether the woman or baby tested positive. Those omissions leave the criminal case focused tightly on timing, notice and consent rather than on any publicly confirmed transmission.
After the woman contacted police, investigators sought records they say confirmed Cotton had already been diagnosed. The arrest report states that a blood specimen was collected July 11, 2025, and that the result, dated July 15, 2025, was positive for HIV. That date matters because it predates the October start of the relationship described by police. Cotton was arrested March 13 on a third-degree felony count under Florida Statute 384.24(2). He was booked into jail that morning and later released on $10,000 bond. By afternoon, the Pensacola Police Department had publicly acknowledged the arrest, placed him on administrative leave and opened an internal affairs investigation. In practical terms, that means the case now runs on two sets of facts at once: one about what happened between two adults in private, and another about how a police agency responds when one of its officers becomes the subject of a criminal allegation.
This telling of the case also shifts attention toward the women who brought the allegation into view. One appears in the record as the person who sounded the alarm. The other then became the complainant who pushed the matter into the justice system. Their actions, rather than any public police work at the outset, created the path to the charge. That distinction gives the story a different shape from many police cases. There was no street encounter, no patrol stop and no emergency call. Instead, the record describes a personal warning, a private exchange and a later decision to involve investigators. The result is a case that depends heavily on records, messages and chronology.
The next public milestone is arraignment. Cotton was scheduled to appear in April, and the case remains at an early stage. Prosecutors will have to show he knew of his HIV status, had been informed of the risk of transmission through sexual intercourse and did not disclose that information before sex with the woman. The internal affairs inquiry could move on a separate timetable and may stay largely out of public view unless discipline is imposed or records later become available. For now, the case stands where the warning led it: in court, under a statute that turns private nondisclosure into a felony allegation.
Author note: Last updated April 13, 2026.