Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling Redefines “Lewdness” in Indecent Exposure Law

In a decision likely to ripple across courtrooms and classrooms alike, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently overturned an indecent exposure conviction against a Rochester woman who had been charged for baring her breasts in public. The ruling? Nudity alone isn’t enough — not unless it’s lewd in the legal sense of the word.

But what is lewdness, and why does this matter?

As reported by the Star Tribune, the case stems from a 2021 incident in which Eloisa Plancarte was arrested after exposing her breasts in a gas station parking lot. She was charged under Minnesota Statutes § 617.23 subdivision 1(1), the state’s indecent exposure law, which prohibits “willfully and lewdly” exposing the body or private parts in a public place.

Her case worked its way to the state’s highest court. And in April 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a key clarification:

“Lewdness,” the Court wrote, requires conduct that is sexual in nature. Mere exposure, without sexual context, doesn’t meet the bar.

Legal Takeaways from the Ruling

Here’s what the ruling tells us — and what it means moving forward:

• “Lewd” isn’t just a synonym for “naked.” The Court emphasized that not all public nudity is lewd. There must be a sexual component to the conduct — something beyond simply being unclothed.
• Not all body parts are legally “private.” Justice Sarah Hennesy, concurring, questioned whether female breasts should be considered “private parts” under the statute. Her opinion reflects a broader discussion on gender equality in public exposure laws.
• The burden of proof just got steeper. Prosecutors can no longer rely on nudity alone. They must prove the defendant had sexual intent — a much taller order in many cases.

This decision essentially narrows the scope of what the law can criminalize and gives Minnesotans, especially defense attorneys and constitutional scholars, something to chew on.

Why This Matters for Criminal Defense

In the legal world, definitions matter. And in criminal law, they can mean the difference between guilt and acquittal.

For anyone accused of indecent exposure or related sex offenses, this ruling shifts the landscape. Defense attorneys now have stronger grounds to challenge overbroad or misapplied charges that rely more on public discomfort than provable intent.

This ruling may also affect:

• Allegations stemming from non-sexual nudity in protests, breastfeeding, or topless sunbathing.
• Cases involving mentally ill or intoxicated individuals whose conduct may have been misinterpreted.
• Broader debates over equal application of the law regardless of gender.

What This Means for Our Clients

At Tamburino Law Group, we’ve spent decades defending individuals charged with sex crimes and other serious criminal offenses in Minnesota. This ruling isn’t just a change in the law; it’s a reminder of why zealous legal defense matters.

We understand how easily someone can find themselves facing serious allegations over a misunderstanding or mischaracterization. And now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s clarification, there’s a clearer path to fighting back.

If you’re facing an indecent exposure charge or any type of sex crime allegation, this ruling could directly impact your case. Our experienced team stands ready to help you understand your rights and craft a defense that takes full advantage of the law as it stands today — not as it’s been misunderstood in the past.

To request a confidential case review with a member of our team, call (612) 444-5020 or contact us online. For a more in-depth understanding of the Court's decision, you can read the full opinion here: State v. Plancarte.