Are elbows indecent? Minnesota’s bizarre legal argument

A Minnesota court considers the limits of indecent exposure, with broad implications for naturists and gender equality

Nude Lady Justice | Source

The Minnesota Supreme Court is currently deliberating a case that could potentially redefine the boundaries of indecent exposure, at least in the state. At the center of the debate is Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, who was convicted after walking through a gas station parking lot with her breasts uncovered. While the case has sparked discussions on gender equality, the state’s attorney introduced an even more perplexing argument. He suggested that under the current law, even exposing an elbow could theoretically violate Minnesota’s indecent exposure statute. When Associate Justice Karl Procaccini asked if the statute could apply to any body part, Jim Haase, the attorney representing the state, responded, “I would say it’s conceivable.”¹

By the extended logic of this implication, any body part—whether sexualized by society or not—could be deemed indecent depending on intent and context. Whether or not it ever actually would be, the idea that exposing an elbow could be considered criminal reflects the murkiness of statutes governing what is considered “lewd” or indecent, bringing attention to just how outdated and inconsistent many of these statutes have become.

For Plancarte, however, the focus is not on elbows but on gender. Her defense argues that women’s breasts are not legally “private parts” under Minnesota’s indecent exposure statute, and thus her conviction should be overturned. They further argue that the statute unfairly discriminates against women, as men are not punished for exposing their chests. This case brings to the forefront how society continues to apply gendered standards to public nudity, with women’s bodies consistently sexualized and criminalized in ways men’s are not.

Gender inequality and vague laws

According to the statute, found under Section 617.23, a person is guilty of misdemeanor indecent exposure if they “willfully and lewdly expose the person’s body, or the private parts thereof,” or if they engage in “open or gross lewdness” in a public setting or anywhere others are present. The statute is written in a broad manner, allowing for subjective interpretation.

While it’s unlikely that Minnesotans will be arrested for exposing their elbows any time soon, the idea that any body part could theoretically lead to prosecution for indecent exposure opens up significant concerns for naturists and body freedom advocates. If the law is applied in such a broad way, it raises the legitimate question of where the line is drawn—and who gets to draw it. This level of legal ambiguity is problematic, especially in a society that is slowly evolving in its views on nudity and body freedom.

The main issues of Plancarte’s case concern whether her breasts are considered private parts and whether the law is inherently discriminatory in how it treats men and women. While men are free to walk shirtless in public, women face criminal penalties for the same behavior. This discrepancy brings into question whether laws like Minnesota’s indecent exposure statute reflect outdated societal norms rather than legal consistency. Plancarte’s defense has repeatedly emphasized this, arguing that the conviction itself enforces gender inequality by treating women’s bodies as inherently more indecent than men’s.

Historically, courts have upheld the notion that men and women are not “similarly situated” in cases of public nudity, reinforcing the idea that women’s breasts are sexualized in ways that men’s chests are not. In the 2017 Tagami v. City of Chicago case, the court ruled that Chicago's ordinance prohibiting women, but not men, from being topless in public did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that societal norms justified the distinction. This decision upheld the idea that female breasts are inherently more sexualized and, therefore, subject to different legal treatment. In contrast, New York’s Rochester Topfree Seven case saw the state’s highest court take a different approach. In 1992, the court ruled that preventing women from going topless in public while allowing men to do so was discriminatory, thereby affirming gender equality in this context.

As cases like Plancarte’s reach the courts, they force us to re-examine whether legal precedents that differentiate between male and female nudity still align with modern values or if it’s time to redefine what body parts are subject to criminalization.

Impact on body freedom

This case has broad implications for naturists and body freedom advocates, especially considering recent legislative developments in neighboring Wisconsin. Naturists in Wisconsin have been facing increased legal challenges with recent bills and rule changes aimed at criminalizing all forms of public nudity. For example, AB503 and AB504, proposed in late 2023, sought to tighten restrictions on public nudity, particularly focusing on events like Madison’s World Naked Bike Ride.

Though it’s unknown whether Plancarte herself identifies as a naturist, her case is highly relevant to naturists, as it underscores how vague and broad indecent exposure laws can be used to crack down on naturist activities. If the legal framework remains as vague as it is, how much discretion is left to law enforcement or courts in determining what is “indecent” and what is not? The elbow argument, though presented as a hyperbolic hypothetical, is not far removed from the underlying reality that the law currently leaves much to interpretation. This gives courts and police significant power to criminalize exposure based on subjective judgments rather than objective legal standards. For naturists and body freedom advocates, this is a troubling precedent.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling in this case could have lasting effects on how public nudity is treated in the state. If Plancarte’s conviction is upheld, it reinforces the double standards that exist under the law around how men’s and women’s bodies are policed in public. If overturned, it may signal a shift toward more gender-equal treatment and could pave the way for future reforms of indecent exposure laws, particularly in their application to non-sexual nudity. 🪐

1. Wasson, M. (2024, October 8). Minnesota high court asked if showing breasts, elbows can be indecent exposure. Courthouse News. https://www.courthousenews.com/minnesota-high-court-asked-if-showing-breasts-elbows-can-be-indecent-exposure/