Exposing Breasts In Public Isn’t Always Illegal In Minnesota: State Supreme Court

ST. PAUL, MN — It may be socially frowned upon, but it’s not automatically illegal. That’s the message from the Minnesota Supreme Court, which overturned a woman’s indecent exposure conviction this week, ruling that showing her breasts in public didn’t meet the legal definition of "lewd" behavior.

The relevant law in this case, Minnesota Statutes § 617.23, subd. 1(1), states:

A person is guilty of indecent exposure if the person, in any public place or in any place where others are present, willfully and lewdly exposes the person’s body, or the private parts thereof.

"To ‘lewdly’ expose oneself," Justice Karl Procaccini wrote in the opinion, "a person must engage in conduct of a sexual nature."

Because Eloisa Rubi Plancarte wasn’t acting sexually when she walked topless through a Rochester, Minnesota gas station lot, the court ruled, “the State failed to present evidence sufficient to prove” she broke the law.

The ruling signals that public nudity, while potentially provocative, isn’t automatically criminal unless it’s tied to sexual behavior.

"Mere exposure of a person’s 'body, or the private parts thereof,' is insufficient to prove the lewdness element of indecent exposure," the opinion states.

As for whether female breasts legally qualify as "private parts," the opinion stated, "we need not interpret the statutory phrase" and “we decline to do so.”

Plancarte had been convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure under Minnesota Statutes § 617.23, subd. 1(1), and sentenced to 90 days in jail. She served 30 days before her sentence was stayed pending appeal.

The decision leaves open future legal battles over gender, nudity, and equal protection, but for now, simply exposing breasts in public, without sexual intent, is not a crime in Minnesota.

Here are five things to know from the ruling:

1. Lewdness Requires Sexual Conduct

The Court held that to “lewdly” expose oneself under Minnesota’s indecent exposure law (Minn. Stat. § 617.23), a person must engage in conduct of a sexual nature. Nudity alone, without sexual behavior, does not meet the statutory definition of “lewd.”

“To ‘lewdly’ expose oneself ... a person must engage in conduct of a sexual nature.”

2. Plancarte’s Conviction Was Reversed

The justices overturned Eloisa Rubi Plancarte’s conviction because there was no evidence she acted sexually when walking topless in public. Her nudity alone was not enough to support the charge.

“The State failed to present evidence sufficient to prove that Plancarte ‘lewdly’ exposed her breasts.”

3. Court Avoided Defining 'Private Parts'

While the case involved the exposure of breasts, the Court did not decide whether female breasts legally count as “private parts” under the statute, leaving that question for another day.

“We need not interpret the statutory phrase ‘body, or the private parts thereof,’ and we decline to do so.”

4. Equal Protection Argument Was Not Addressed

Plancarte raised a constitutional challenge based on equal protection, arguing that it’s unfair to criminalize female toplessness but not male, but the Court declined to reach that issue.

The justices relied solely on statutory interpretation and reversed the conviction on those grounds.

5. Concurring Justice Argued Breasts Shouldn't Be Criminalized

Justice Sarah Hennesy, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Procaccini, argued that female breasts are not “private parts” and warned that criminalizing them reinforces harmful stereotypes and risks discriminatory enforcement.

“Interpreting ‘private parts’ to include female breasts would obscure the distinction between ‘private parts’ and ‘intimate parts’ that the Legislature has chosen to use.”