Minnesota court says toplessness is not lewd
State Supreme Court unanimously rules that exposing female breasts in public is not indecent exposure without sexual conduct
In a unanimous ruling filed April 30, 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, a woman cited for indecent exposure after revealing her breasts in a gas station parking lot in 2021. The decision clarifies that public toplessness by women does not constitute “lewd” conduct under the state’s indecent exposure statute unless it involves sexual behavior.1
Plancarte was arrested in Rochester on July 28, 2021, after police responded to a report that she was walking around the parking lot of a Kwik Trip with her breasts exposed. She had been cited twice earlier that week in similar incidents. When questioned by officers, she reportedly replied, “I think Catholic girls do it all the time” and said she was “a stripper at the biker club.”2
The Olmsted County District Court found Plancarte guilty in 2022, sentencing her to 90 days in jail. A divided Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. But the state Supreme Court determined that the record “does not show that Plancarte engaged in conduct of a sexual nature,” and therefore did not meet the legal definition of “lewd” exposure.3
Justice Karl Procaccini, writing for the court, emphasized that the word “lewdly” in Minnesota Statutes § 617.23 refers specifically to “conduct of a sexual nature.” The justices found that mere exposure of the breasts, without accompanying sexual behavior, did not meet this threshold: “At most, Plancarte’s statements speak to her subjective mental state... which is irrelevant to determining whether her conduct was lewd.”4
A concurring opinion by Justice Sarah Hennesy went further. While agreeing with the court’s interpretation of “lewdly,” she argued that female breasts are not “private parts” under the meaning of the law. “Breasts are neither reproductive organs nor excretory organs,” she wrote, “and therefore are not private parts.”5
“Interpreting ‘private parts’ to include female — and not male — breasts would lead to the continued stigmatization of female breasts as inherently sexual.”
— Justice Sarah Hennesy6
Hennesy cautioned that current interpretations may invite arbitrary enforcement, especially given gender-based assumptions. “Criminalizing the exposure of female — but not male — breasts... fails to recognize the more nuanced physical realities of human bodies, whether they are intersex, transgender, nonbinary, or breast cancer survivors.”7
Jeff Day of the Star Tribune noted that Hennesy cited laws from other states that differentiate “private parts” from “intimate parts,” showing the legislature could have explicitly categorized breasts if that were the intent.8
CBS Minnesota’s Eric Henderson reported that Plancarte had argued the law was “unconstitutionally vague,” though the high court chose not to rule on the equal protection issue, resolving the case solely on statutory grounds.9
While the ruling stops short of declaring full gender parity in topless rights, it significantly narrows the scope under which female toplessness can be prosecuted in Minnesota. 🪐
Minnesota Supreme Court. (2025). State v. Plancarte, A23-0158, p. 2. https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2025/OPA230158-043025.pdf
Day, J. (2025, May 5). Minnesota Supreme Court: Female breasts are not lewd or inherently sexual and can be exposed in public. Star Tribune. https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-supreme-court-indecent-exposure-womens-breasts-in-public/601343618
(State v. Plancarte, 2025, p. 2)
(State v. Plancarte, 2025, p. 19)
(State v. Plancarte, 2025, conc. p. C-4)
(State v. Plancarte, 2025, conc. p. C-7)
Estright, O. (2025, May 1). Minnesota Supreme Court reverses woman’s indecent exposure conviction. Post Bulletin. https://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/minnesota-supreme-court-reverses-womans-indecent-exposure-conviction
(Day, 2025).
Henderson, E. (2025, May 6). Minnesota Supreme Court rules that women’s bare breasts in public do not qualify as “lewd”. CBS Minnesota. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesota-supreme-court-women-bare-breasts-lewd-ruling/
I used to live in Olmsted County where this case originated. I moved to North Carolina in 1984.
This ruling (topless not lewd) was old news in North Carolina even then. In 2012, when the Topfree movement was getting some publicity, a group of women in Asheville, NC (a very progressive community) recognized Topfree Day by going top-free and marching around the town square. Several law enforcement personnel were present but did not take action.
After an hour or so, with no reaction, one of the women confronted an officer and demanded, "Aren't you going to arrest us?"
The officer responded, "Display of breasts and nipples is not against the law in North Carolina. We're here to make sure no one bothers you." This was reported widely in North Carolina newspapers.
As you know, much of North Carolina is strongly faith-based, and one legislator introduced House Bill 34, the "Nipple Bill" to restrict topless display. It failed to pass. The next year he tried again, and after the second failure, gave up.
Asheville is in the mountains. At the other end of the state, 8 hours drive away, a few of the coastal communities have passed ordinances restricting display, but their citations bear no more weight than a parking ticket.
Anyone who fails to see the clear logic of top free equality is a boob.