Nudity

A Utah Woman Faces the Sex Offender Registry for Going Topless in Front of Her Stepkids

Tilli Buchanan and her husband removed their shirts after installing insulation in their garage. Only one of them is facing charges.

|

A Utah stepmother might land on the sex offender registry for baring her breasts in her own home.

It's not clear when exactly the incident took place. (One recollection puts it in the fall of 2016, while another has it in late 2017 or early 2018.) According to the stepmother, Tilli Buchanan of West Valley City, it happened after she and her husband installed insulation in their garage. Upon finishing, the couple returned to the main part of the house and removed their itchy clothes. At that point Buchanan's stepchildren walked downstairs and saw the couple shirtless. To ease their embarrassment, Buchanan then attempted to explain that her being topless was not inherently sexual and compared it to them seeing their father's bare chest.

Prosecutors tell a different story. They say Buchanan purposefully took her shirt off in front of her stepchildren while under the influence of alcohol, then told her husband that she would only put her shirt back on if she saw his penis.

Just how exactly did law enforcement become aware of the private moment in the first place? The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the mother of Buchanan's stepchildren heard about the incident and was "alarmed" enough to report it to the Division of Child and Family Services. Earlier this year, a police detective called Buchanan to ask about it.

Buchanan now faces three misdemeanor charges for lewdness involving a child, which Utah statute 76-9-702.5 defines as exposing "genitals, the female breast below the top of the areola, the buttocks, the anus, or the pubic area." The statute applies in public spaces, and in private spaces "under circumstances the person should know will likely cause affront or alarm or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the actor or the child." If convicted, Buchanan will be placed on the sex offender registry for 10 years.

Buchanan's husband, who by all accounts was at the same level of undress, has escaped legal consequences. The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, which appeared in court to support Buchanan this week, argues that this disparity in the lewdness statute violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. "We want people to be treated equally," says Leah Farrell, a senior staff attorney with the group. "When the state and criminal justice system are involved, we have to scrutinize our personal feelings about what morality should be and what is simply criminalizing someone's body because of their gender."

The case is expected to receive a ruling within the next two months.

NEXT: 3-Year-Old Dies in Freak Escalator Accident, Police Charge Mom With Child Abuse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And we couldn’t even be bothered to provide pictures. Some libertarian rag this is.

    1. Thank god. Have you ever been to a nude beach? It’s not full of supermodels.

      1. If everyone was a supermodel, who would be beautiful?

        1. Supermodels haven’t been beautiful since the early 1960s.

      2. Yes and nudies are mostly very nice people. I agree about that.

      3. I have never been injured by seeing an unattractive person naked.

        1. But what if you paid in advance?

        2. I’ve never been seriously injured but I pulled something once.

          1. Be careful not to pull too hard. 🙂

        3. Me neither, but it’s been close.

      4. I went to a topless beach in 1988 that was though. Unfortunately cell phones with cameras weren’t available then.

      5. Stare at enough BBWs and they start to look good. That’s what every man from Nebraska tells me.

        1. Fite me

  2. Prosecutors tell a different story.

    Prosecutors have been watching a very specific genre of porn lately.

    1. Links pls, for … umm … research purposes.

      1. Can I be your research assistant?

  3. First of all, I disagree that this is an equal protection issue. Men and women have inherent differences.
    Should a woman go to jail because she is topless? Of course, not. But it isn’t because men can go topless. It is because she isn’t harming anyone by simply being naked.
    What I would like to know is how did the prosecutors get such detailed knowledge of what transpired and what was said? This sounds so much like a mixed family squabble that shouldn’t come anywhere near law enforcement.

    1. The information came from the kid’s mother. Whether she reported it because wants to get at the father or thinks the stepmother is a weirdo is part of the issue here.

      1. plus it was in her own house, case dismissed.

      2. Regardless, if the justice system took the reasonable doubt standards seriously, it would be dismissed. No way you can prove that.

    2. Kids told mom. Mom told the police. Unfortunately, I know people who would pull shit like this in front of kids, and I know people who would lie about this sort of thing in an attempt to get revenge on their ex and their “replacement”.

      1. What “shit”? Changing your clothes in your own house?

    3. What I would like to know is how did the prosecutors get such detailed knowledge of what transpired and what was said?

      That was my knee-jerk the “I won’t get dressed unless I see your penis.” story was out of left field.

      1. I could kind of see it if stepmom was making the point that her going topless shouldn’t be seen as different from Dad going topless. It wouldn’t make tremendous sense, but I’ve heard (and made) dumber arguments.

    4. I disagree that this is an equal protection issue.

      Hilarious considering that, per obvious comments from the commentary, it’s likely the ex-wife’s complete or near-complete fabrication against the current wife. Women hassling other women is the patriarchy holding them down.

      1. I noticed that patriarchy spin too.

        For some reason, taxpayers need to solve this domestic problem where the ex-wife is a fucking cunt toward the new wife who is fine with her body and loves the husband’s dick. Sounds like a keeper to me.

    5. Nevertheless, in New York women won the right to be topless in public, on equal protection grounds.

  4. Women have secondary sex characteristics on their upper torsos. Men do not. There is not an equivalency, certainly not one that should be determined by judicial fiat.

    1. There is no such thing as ‘men’ or ‘women’. Ask any woke trans.
      Even DNA cannot be relied upon to distinguish.
      All the accused has to do is say “at the time, I identified as male”.
      Case closed. (at least until the ex-wife disappears)

    2. Uh some men have bigger boobs than some women.

    3. Women have secondary sex characteristics on their upper torsos. Men do not.

      What are nipples?

      I don’t expect or really want social expectations to change (though personally, I don’t give a crap about social nudity and think people should get over it). But legally, I don’t see a need for the distinction.
      It’s also one of those things that doesn’t need a law. People mostly cover up because they choose to, not because there is a law.

      1. I have nipples, can you milk me, Zeb?

    4. “Women have secondary sex characteristics on their upper torsos. Men do not.”

      did you know, that male breast tissue is in fact fully functional?

    5. “Sex characteristics”? They’re not sex organs, no big deal.

  5. “Principal Skinner and Miss Krabappel were in the closet making babies and then i saw one of the babies fall out” or something to that effect

    ~~Ralph Wiggum

    1. One of my many talents is useless TV show (and movie) quotes

      “Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me!”

      1. right. “the baby looked at you? Sara! get me Principal Skinner on one”

        gracias

    2. And the baby looked at me

    3. Nice illustration of just how much we should believe the stories children tell about odd things they see.

      1. gracias it was my aim.

  6. the mother of Buchanan’s stepchildren

    This is why you should never have an ex.

    1. Yep-otherwise there would be perhaps tens of thousands of cases like this every day. My kids seem to always walk in right after my wife or I get out of the shower, but exes are always looking for any reason to screw over the other ex

      1. It’s called a door lock.

        1. Exactly! Lock those little brats in their room where they belong.

          1. Well, I’d actually rather my kids know first hand what adult bodies really look like from us than from watching porn, so I don’t care too much about them seeing us in the buff

    2. This is why you should never have an living ex.

      FIFY

      1. Seriously, if you’re divorced and have young children, it’s a really good idea to remain celibate until the kids are at least in adolescence. Young children are the nuclear weapons of nasty breakups.

        1. And on the woman’s side, Mom’s Boyfriend is the most dangerous person in the world to kids.

  7. So some dude’s ex is using CPS and the police to get revenge. Nothing new here. Profoundly sad, but nothing new. I hope the judge grows a pair and make her pay all the court and legal fees involved. Plus some contempt of court for wasting his time.

    1. While we’re wishing for unicorns, the judge might also censure the prosecutor for bringing this sort of shit into court

  8. mother of Buchanan’s stepchildren heard about the incident and was “alarmed” enough to report it to the Division of Child and Family Services.

    No wonder Dad divorced her. Cunt.

  9. Note that the allegation isn’t just about taking off her shirt.

    I suspect this could all be resolved quickly if he gave up visitation and doubled his child support.

  10. then told her husband that she would only put her shirt back on if she saw his penis.

    I’ll take impossible solutions for $1,000, Alex.

    1. LMFAO

  11. Division of Child and Family Services

    The usual suspect – – – – – – – – – –

  12. Utah statute 76-9-702.5 defines as exposing “genitals, the female breast below the top of the areola, the buttocks, the anus, or the pubic area.”

    So I guess a nursing mother is by definition a sex offender?

    1. Exactly. This story and those charges for Craiglist posting are just outrageous.

  13. Prosecutors tell a different story. They say Buchanan purposefully took her shirt off in front of her stepchildren while under the influence of alcohol, then told her husband that she would only put her shirt back on if she saw his penis.

    Who cares? None of these claims should be criminal, ever!

    This was in the privacy of a home, this involved parents and their children, and there was no sexual abuse.

    This is about kids seeing a female naked chest. Kids typically are introduced to naked female chests from Day 1.

    Fucking America and this puritanical streak rearing its ugly head again.

  14. She should just identify as a man and the charges go away.

    1. Not in Utah, they don’t.

  15. I’m not saying the prosecutor’s version of events is the right one, or that they have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

    But it seems the ACLU is using this situation to establish a legal precedent that a topless woman is legally equivalent to a topless man. This is something only a defense lawyer or an intellectual could believe (loosely adapting George Orwell’s famous statement).

    1. Women can go topless in NY.

      1. Yea, but the one’s that do are lesbians and activists; and nobody wants to see that shit.

        1. I was pretty happy to see this one: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Scout-Willis-Topless-New-York-City-Instagram-Nudity-Policy-261071901.html

          (Sorry, at work so I can find the good pics)

          There are also the body paint people in Times square.

          1. Like I said, activists.

    2. You cannot have standing unless you are legally impacted by these laws thanks to our fucked up SCOTUS precedent.

      So… this is a good case to get this type of criminal law stricken from the books.

    3. how about a legal precedent that being naked in your own house is not the same thing as being naked in public?

  16. So there’s not one nudist family in Utah?

  17. “Mother charged with aggravated sexual assault for forcing nipple into her child’s mouth; incredulously claims she was ‘breastfeeding.'”

    1. Well, now, that gives a whole bunch of statists a brand new weapon – – – – – – –

  18. But if she’d breast fed them, that would’ve been laudable.

    1. At what age do children need to be blindfolded while nursing? Does the law specify that?

      1. At whatever age the weirdos who make a sport of gawking at breastfeeding mothers start to get the tingles in their peenies.

        Fuck the baby. Fuck the mom.

        If homeless Carl can stroke it to lactation, then tits are a ticket to incarceration.

  19. DON’T TALK TO COPS. The state would have no case if the Buchanans hadn’t tried to explain themselves.

  20. Women’s breasts are indeed terrifying. Despite the fact that without them the human race would not exist, there is a magical age at which humans are barred from actually seeing them. God works in mysterious ways.

    1. The Federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Utah, ruled in the Fort Collins, Colorado case regarding nudity bans like Utah that it is unconstitutional to ban women from being topless and showing their breasts/nipples if there is no ban on men doing the same. So unless Utahs’ law on not showing nipples is applied to both men and women, this ban and law will more than likely be ruled unconstitutional by the same appellate court, which is probably why the Judge has not ruled on it yet. The Judge is probably trying to get clarification from the 10th circuit court on its already ruling, and weighing the pros and cons of if this is a legal battle the state court is willing to take on.

      1. So Utah prosecutors are dumbasses wasting taxpayer dollars to facilitate the ex wife’s revenge even though they know, or should know, that their stunt is doomed to failure?

  21. This sounds like how half the videos on pornhub start…. or so I’ve heard.

  22. The ex wife is a crazed abs vengeful nut job and the judge is a doltish toady that is too spineless to dismiss the case.

  23. she made the mistake of talking to cops. Just keep your mouth shut. If he asks about the incident your answer is to hand him your lawyer’s business card.

    1. And “cops” includes child protective services.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.