The Right to Bare Breasts
In July 2021, police officers in Rochester were called to a Kwik Trip parking lot where they found Eloisa Plancarte with her shirt pulled up, revealing her breasts. Plancarte, who had been previously charged twice that week for indecent exposure, was arrested and charged again. She argued that her breasts are not private parts and that there was nothing lewd about exposing them. The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in State v. Plancarte, ruled in her favor - holding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that her conduct was “lewd,” but declining to answer the question of whether a woman’s breasts are “private parts.”
The Court Defines the Term “Lewdly”
The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with Plancarte, ruling that there is nothing illegal about a woman having her breasts out in public in Minnesota, as long as she is not engaging in sexual activity. The court's opinion discussed the ambiguity of terms like "lewd" and "indecency" in the state's legal statutes, and ultimately concluded that that “lewdly” refers to conduct of a sexual nature. Justice Karl Procaccini and Justice Sarah Hennesy provided detailed opinions on the matter, with Hennesy emphasizing the need to avoid the sexual objectification of women.
Justice Hennesy Argues that Breasts are not “Private Parts”
In her concurring opinion, Justice Hennesy opined that she “would also hold that breasts are not a person’s ‘body, or the private parts thereof’ under Minnesota’s indecent exposure statute.” The justice argued that “body” must be interpreted to mean the “the entire body.” She further reasoned that “[b]ecause breasts are neither reproductive organs nor excretory organs, breasts are not private parts.” Justice Hennesy further articulated the policy basis for this conclusion: “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.”
What is a “concurring” opinion? A concurring opinion is a separate opinion written by a judge who agrees with the majority opinion in a case but wishes to express their own reasoning or emphasize a point that wasn't fully addressed in the majority opinion. The concurrence is not part of the binding precedent of the case, so judges in the future do not have to follow the conclusions in the concurring opinion. However, it may be considered persuasive and can influence future case law.
Ultimately, the ruling clarified that the exposure of breasts is not considered lewd unless it involves conduct of a sexual nature. This decision has implications for how indecent exposure laws are applied in Minnesota, particularly regarding the treatment of women's bodies.
References:
MN Supreme Court rules that female breasts can be exposed in public
