Apparently Now, You Can Just “Let ‘Em Out” in Minnesota

Well, this is new.

When I first read the headline regarding the Minnesota Supreme Court saying that a woman's breasts are not "inherently sexual" and that it cannot be considered indecent exposure if you can just simply see a woman's breasts in public.  I immediately thought it was a story about a woman breast feeding her child.  That would totally make sense, right?

That was not what the story was about.

This story, on Bring Me the News, was about a woman who had been arrested at a Kwik Trip in Rochester, Minnesota for walking around in public with her shirt pulled up exposing her breasts.  This case was back in 2021, and the woman had been convicted of indecent exposure.  Now, this case has been overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Why?  You might ask.

Get our free mobile app

I'm just learning this right along with you.

In examining how the state statute uses the term "lewdly", the high court found the state's indecent exposure law refers to conduct of a sexual nature, and breasts are not inherently sexual.

This is a verdict that was overturned, where originally the judge in the case stated that this woman, Eloisa Plancarte, was an exhibitionist.

“was not at a beach designated for nude bathing by people who enjoy that sort of thing. She was not in a locker room or public lavatory which strangers might share in a state of undress. Ms. Plancarte was strolling across the parking lot of a gas station."

To me, that statement seems accurate.  The problem is that apparently that is not illegal.  When the case was appealed and went all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court, they stated that while the above is an accurate statement, if she happened to be walking around with her breasts exposed, it's not indecent exposure because she was not doing it in a sexual nature.

...did not present evidence sufficient to prove" that Plancarte "lewdly" exposed her "body, or the private parts thereof" because the record does not show that she "engaged in conduct of a sexual nature."

If this is the case, then I would think that would go for men as well.  I know quite a few people who have been tagged with "indecent exposure" for urinating in an alley.  Maybe the problem with that is the public urination, but they also were tagged with the indecent exposure violation.  That should probably be expunged.