The Minnesota Supreme Court recently overturned a ruling that upheld a conviction against a woman for misdemeanor indecent exposure after she revealed her breasts in public, arguing the woman’s actions did not constitute sexual acts.
“The State did not present evidence sufficient to prove that the appellant ‘lewdly’ exposed her ‘body, or the private parts thereof’ under section 617.23, subdivision 1(1), because the record does not show that the appellant engaged in conduct of a sexual nature,” the court unanimously ruled.
In other words, in order for an act to be considered “lewd” under the indecent exposure statute, “a person must engage in conduct of a sexual nature,” the court found.
“Mere exposure of a person’s ‘body, or the private parts thereof,’ is insufficient to prove the lewdness element of indecent exposure,” the court said. The statute in question includes an exemption for breastfeeding.
Board member Julie Quist of the Child Protection League criticized the Supreme Court justices for “legalizing exhibitionism” and called the decision “an overt attack” on children’s innocence.
“By ignoring the relevant part of state law, two judges have outrageously legalized exhibitionism. As this relates to children, allowing women to bare breasts on the beaches, on the streets, and at grocery stores erodes children’s natural sense of modesty that serves as a safe sexual boundary,” said Quist. “This ruling is an overt attack on their innocence and their minds, making them far more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.”
Eloisa R. Plancarte, a 28-year-old woman, was charged by Olmsted County prosecutors in July 2021 with a misdemeanor of indecent exposure after she had been found walking around topless near a Rochester Kwik Trip. When police officers responded to the scene, Plancarte was asked why her breasts were exposed and she allegedly told the officers she was a stripper and that “Catholic girls do it all the time.”
Now retired Judge Joseph Chase of Olmsted County found Plancarte guilty of indecent exposure for “willfully and lewdly” revealing her private parts.
Plancarte’s attorney appealed the decision, arguing that breasts are not “private parts” under the statute and, if they were, Plancarte’s exposure was not “lewd.” Additionally, her attorneys argued that Minnesota violated her right to equal protection under the law by prosecuting her for conduct that men are freely permitted to engage in.
However, a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision last year upheld Judge Chase’s decision convicting her of a misdemeanor.
Justice Karl Procaccini, an appointee to the Minnesota Supreme Court by Gov. Tim Walz, authored the Supreme Court’s opinion and explained the justices were persuaded “lewdly” was “ambiguous in the context of the indecent exposure statute.”
“In conclusion, even viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented in the stipulated-evidence trial does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Plancarte engaged in conduct of a sexual nature. We therefore hold that the State failed to present evidence sufficient to prove that Plancarte ‘lewdly’ exposed her breasts in violation of the indecent exposure statute,” he wrote.
The court did not weigh in on Plancarte’s other arguments. However, Justice Sarah Hennesy, also a Gov. Walz appointee, concurred by writing: “I agree with the majority’s conclusion … but I would also hold that breasts are not a person’s ‘body, or the private parts thereof’ under Minnesota’s indecent exposure statute.”
Quist told Alpha News she disagreed with the justices’ written opinion.
“It clearly violates the indecency law and normal community standards,” said Quist. “In this case the woman was a stripper who was arrested for doing in public what she does in a private venue for paying adults where no minors are present.”
Renee Carlson, general counsel of True North Legal, an initiative of the Minnesota Family Council, also criticized the Supreme Court decision. Carlson told Alpha News this Supreme Court decision denies the biological reality of men and women.
“In this ruling, the Court is ignoring key facts that everyone knows: that men and women are different in some key physiological ways,” says Carlson. “The Court should affirm, not erase, those distinctions in law, so that we can reinforce, not weaken, the protections for women and girls that our society needs.”
Furthermore, Carlson brought attention to the potential degradation of societal standards through the court’s ruling by asking a rhetorical question.
“The Court’s interpretation is also degrading to the moral standards most Americans want our society to have,” says Carlson. “If the Court rules that exposing body parts at a gas station is something that everyone, including our children, should be subjected to, what’s the next standard to fall?”
Sarah Prentice
Sarah Prentice has previously written for Campus Reform and worked as an intern at Media Research Center. While continuing to pursue her degree in political science, she worked full-time in communications and media outreach for a pro-woman, pro-life non-profit. Now a fellow at Alpha News during her senior year of college, she hopes to graduate with her political science degree from SUNY Brockport and combine it with her media and communications experience to pursue political journalism. She has a special interest in reporting on stories related to social issues, education, public health, and religious freedom.
