Policeman exonerated in AIDS warning, Morris Twp. must pay his legal bill

Star Ledger ^ | 12.06.05 | MARGARET McHUGH AND BILL SWAYZE

[Coleus]

An off-duty Morris Township police officer who warned his brother-in-law's friend that the woman he was dating might have AIDS was doing his job by trying to prevent the spread of disease, an appeals court ruled yesterday.

A three-judge panel ordered the township to pick up the $15,000 legal bill that officer Louis Pirrello ran up defending himself in a defamation suit brought by the woman.

"His actions were intended to prevent the transmission of AIDS," Appellate Court Judge Michael Winkelstein wrote in a 21-page opinion.

The head of Eric Johnson House, a Morristown shelter for homeless people with HIV and AIDS, criticized the ruling and said it could have a chilling effect.

"I think the appeals court is wrong. How can this be for the greater good of the public when there is no danger to the public?" said Laurie Litt-Robbins, executive director of the house. "I find it sad and outrageous that people are still this ignorant about HIV and AIDS."

Litt-Robbins said the ruling "may dissuade people from getting tested. They might think that if it became known that they were tested, they'd face discrimination."

Township Mayor H. Scott Rosenbush and Administrator Fred Rossi said they needed to read the decision before commenting.

Pirrello, who left the township force in 2004 to become a Harding police officer, did not return phone calls.

The defamation suit was settled for $22,000, with the township picking up all but $2,500.

The township argued it wasn't obligated to pay for Pirrello's defense because he was off-duty when he made the disclosure, and that he should not have done so under the department's confidentiality rules, the decision said.

But the appeals panel found Pirrello made the disclosure in the course of his police function of safeguarding lives. Municipalities are not required

[Tax-chick]

How can this be for the greater good of the public when there is no danger to the public?" said Laurie Litt-Robbins, executive director of the house.

I guess the brother-in-law's friend doesn't count as "the public"?

[Dan Evans]

Kurilla said when the woman took an overdose of pills in May 1997 she informed police who came to her home that she believed she was HIV-positive. She later learned she wasn't, the decision said.

Seems the guy was just repeating what she said. It's only slander if you knowingly speak falsely.

[clee1]

"...They might think that if it became known that they were tested, they'd face discrimination."

Oh horrors!

HIV positive folks might find it difficult to locate bed partners.

Not a problem in my book.