Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Women Can Completely Bare Their Breasts In Public

The Minnesota Supreme Court decided that women completely exposing their breasts in public is legally acceptable.

The ruling in the case State of Minnesota v. Plancarte revolved around Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, who had exposed herself in a police officer’s presence by revealing her bare breasts. The state Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals decision against Plancarte, who had been arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. Plancarte argued to the court that her breasts were not “private parts” and her actions were not “lewd.” A district court found her actions “legally obscene.”

The state Supreme Court opinion recalled the facts of the case, writing:

The facts in this case are short and undisputed: On July 28, 2021, the Rochester Police Department received a report that a woman was walking around a gas station parking lot with her breasts exposed. An officer responded to the call and saw Plancarte in the parking lot with her breasts exposed. The officer recognized Plancarte from two encounters earlier that week. During those encounters, the officer saw Plancarte exposing her underwear on one occasion, and her breasts and her underwear on another occasion. The officer stopped Plancarte and asked her why she kept exposing herself. Plancarte replied, “I think Catholic girls do it all the time.” Plancarte then worried about how she would get home and stated, “I dance at the biker club. I’m a stripper.” The officer said, “Well, you can’t strip in the middle of public.” Plancarte responded, “Yeah, but they should account for me at the club, shouldn’t they?” 

The Minnesota Supreme Court stated:

Because we conclude that the word “lewdly,” as used in section 617.23, subdivision 1(1), refers to conduct of a sexual nature, and because the record does not show that Plancarte engaged in such conduct, we reverse. 

Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships

Justice Karl Procaccini stated:

If the State fails to present evidence sufficient to prove that the exposure was willful, lewd, and in a public place or a place where others are present, then the defendant’s conviction under the statute must be reversed. … Based on our independent review, we are persuaded that “lewdly” is ambiguous in the context of the indecent exposure statute. At least four common usages of “lewdly” are reasonable under the statute. Several dictionaries define “lewd” (the root of “lewdly”) to mean “obscene,” “indecent,” and “lustful,” as well as “[p]reoccupied with sex and sexual desire.” … Although “lewdly” in the indecent exposure statute has a broader meaning than “obscene,” defining “lewdly” as “indecently” or “lustfully” threatens to undermine due  process by failing to put the public on notice of the kinds of acts that are prohibited by the statute. 

Although the  police reports establish that Plancarte was charged with indecent exposure three times in one week for exposing some combination of her breasts and underwear, none of these reports provide any insight into the nature of her exposure during those incidents. Moreover, the officer’s body-worn camera footage does not capture Plancarte engaging in any conduct of a sexual nature. Finally, Plancarte’s comment about being “a stripper” and her assertion that “Catholic girls [expose their breasts] all the time” are not evidence that her conduct in this instance was of a sexual nature.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Sarah Hennesy wrote, “Interpreting ‘private parts’ to include female—and not male—breasts would lead to the continued stigmatization of female breasts as inherently sexual and reinforce the sexual objectification of women. As other courts have recognized, the idea that female breasts are primarily sexual is rooted in stereotypes.”

“Activist judges like these appointed by Governor Walz  are accomplices in Walz’s war on our children,” Julie Quist of the Child Protection League wrote, adding:

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the ACLU of Minnesota, and the radical gender activists Gender Justice are appellants in the case. They are the same people legalizing gender mutilation on our children, releasing hardened criminals from prison, and making Minnesota a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants.

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. This ruling is an overt attack on their innocence and their minds, making them far more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.