§
Subdivision 1.Misdemeanor.
A person who commits any of the following acts in any public place, or in any place where others are present, is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(1) willfully and lewdly exposes the person's body, or the private parts thereof;
(2) procures another to expose private parts; or
(3) engages in any open or gross lewdness or lascivious behavior, or any public indecency other than behavior specified in this subdivision.
§
Subd. 2.Gross misdemeanor.
A person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a gross misdemeanor:
(1) the person violates subdivision 1 in the presence of a minor under the age of 16; or
(2) the person violates subdivision 1 after having been previously convicted of violating subdivision 1, sections 609.342 to 609.3451, or a statute from another state in conformity with any of those sections.
§
Subd. 3.Felony.
A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if:
(1) the person violates subdivision 2, clause (1), after having been previously convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for violating subdivision 2, clause (1); section 609.3451, subdivision 1a, clause (2); or a statute from another state in conformity with subdivision 2, clause (1), or section 609.3451, subdivision 1a, clause (2); or
(2) the person commits a violation of subdivision 1, clause (1), in the presence of another person while intentionally confining that person or otherwise intentionally restricting that person's freedom to move.
§
Subd. 4.Breastfeeding.
It is not a violation of this section for a woman to breastfeed.
Notes of Decisions
City of Mankato v. Fetchenhier, 363 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 12× “The City then filed a complaint charging defendant with lewd and indecent behavior in violation of Minn.Stat. § 617.23 (1984). The trial court found probable cause existed to believe defendant violated the statute; however, upon defendant’s motion, the trial court dismissed the…”
State v. Jama, 923 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. 2019).
· cites it 12× “On appeal, Jama contends that the indecent-exposure statute, Minn. Stat. § 617.23 , subd. 2 (2018), requires the State to prove that he engaged in conduct with a specific intent to be lewd and, therefore, the court of appeals erred when it affirmed the district court's denial of…”
State v. Stevenson, 656 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “The Minnesota indecent exposure statute provides as follows: A person who commits any of the following acts in any public place, or in any place where others are present, is guilty of a misdemeanor: (1) willfully and lewdly exposes the person’s body, or the private parts…”
State v. Decker, 916 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 2018).
· cites it 8× “1(2) (2016), and indecent exposure, under Minn. Stat. § 617.23 , subds. 1(1), 2(1) (2016).”
State v. End, 45 N.W.2d 378 (Minn. 1950).
· cites it 6× “The motion was denied, and sentence was imposed under § 617.23 for a gross misdemeanor. The term of the sentence exceeded that permissible for a misdemeanor.”
State v. Schramel, 581 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 8× “Thus, there is no language in Minn.Stat. § 617.23 indicating that a specific intent to offend the sensibilities of others is required.”
State v. Botsford, 630 N.W.2d 11 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “These dancers challenged their charges of indecent exposure in violation of Minn.Stat. § 617.23, arguing that the statute was overbroad.”
State v. Stevenson, 637 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “1(2) and 3 (2000), and one count of inde-' cent exposure in violation of Minn.Stat. § 617.23, subd. 2(2) (2000). On July 23, 2000, appellant was sitting in his pickup truck in a public parking lot when a witness walked past the vehicle and observed appellant masturbating.”
State v. Jama, 908 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Appellant was charged with one count of indecent exposure in violation of Minn. Stat. § 617.23 , subd. 2(1) (2014).”
Commonwealth v. Quinn, 789 N.E.2d 138 (Mass. 2003).
“335 (West 1991); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 617.23 (West 2003); Nev.”
State v. Duncan, 605 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 8× “Appellants also claim that an interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 617.23 that does not require the element of an intent to offend is unconstitutional because it may forbid activities that are protected by the First Amendment.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Griffith, 838 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 2× “The Saint Paul City Attorney’s Office charged Griffith with indecent exposure in violation of Minn.Stat. § 617.23, subd. 1(1) (2012), a misdemeanor.”
— Minn. Stat. § 617.23(a) — 1 case
State v. Schramel, 581 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
“Thus, there is no language in Minn.Stat. § 617.23 indicating that a specific intent to offend the sensibilities of others is required.”
— Minn. Stat. § 617.23(a)(1) — 1 case
State v. Schramel, 581 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
“Thus, there is no language in Minn.Stat. § 617.23 indicating that a specific intent to offend the sensibilities of others is required.”
— Minn. Stat. § 617.23(a)(1996) — 1 case
State v. Schramel, 581 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
“Thus, there is no language in Minn.Stat. § 617.23 indicating that a specific intent to offend the sensibilities of others is required.”
— Minn. Stat. § 617.23(a)(3) — 1 case
State v. Duncan, 605 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
“Appellants also claim that an interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 617.23 that does not require the element of an intent to offend is unconstitutional because it may forbid activities that are protected by the First Amendment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.