The Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that a woman exposing her bare breasts in public is not inherently "lewd" behavior under the state's indecent exposure statute. The ruling, issued last week, effectively overturned a lower court conviction.
The case stemmed from a 2021 incident in Rochester where a woman was arrested and cited after being observed in a gas station parking lot with her breasts exposed. Court records indicate the woman had reportedly exposed herself on previous occasions and was found with a vial containing cocaine when arrested.
She was charged with misdemeanor indecent exposure, defined by state law as willfully and lewdly exposing one's body or private parts. The defendant challenged the charge, arguing that breasts are not "private parts" under the statute and that her exposure, absent additional conduct, was not "lewd."
A district court initially found the woman guilty, describing her exposure as "'legally obscene'." This decision was later upheld by the Court of Appeals.
However, in the April 30 opinion, authored by Justice Karl Procaccini, the Supreme Court sided with the defendant. The court ruled that for exposure to be considered "lewd," it must involve "conduct of a sexual nature." The justices found that the state had not presented sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's conduct was of a sexual nature.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Sarah Hennesy raised concerns about the ambiguity of the term "private parts." She suggested that future cases may still grapple with the subjective nature of determining what constitutes sexual conduct in such instances.
Justice Hennesy also commented on potential double standards. She wrote that interpreting "private parts" to include only female breasts risks reinforcing the idea that female breasts are inherently sexual and could perpetuate the sexual objectification of women.
The unanimous ruling clarified the standard for what constitutes lewd behavior under Minnesota's indecent exposure law, emphasizing that simple exposure of breasts, without accompanying sexual conduct, does not meet the legal definition. The decision vacated the previous convictions.
A representative for the nonprofit group Gender Justice, which filed a brief supporting the defendant, noted the ruling provides clarity on how the statute should be interpreted and enforced by law enforcement and prosecutors.
