Nudity

Topless Utah Stepmom Pleads Guilty To Avoid Sex Offender Registry

Prosecutors say Tilli Buchanan "took responsibility for her actions."

|

Faced with the possibility of being placed on a sex offender registry for 10 years, Utah's Tilli Buchanan has instead pleaded guilty to lesser charges after being prosecuted for appearing topless in front of her stepchildren. 

As Reason previously reported, the West Valley City stepmom was accused of purposefully baring her breasts to her stepchildren inside her home. Buchanan maintains that she and her husband removed their itchy clothing after installing insulation in their garage. When the children walked downstairs and saw them shirtless, Buchanan says that she tried to ease their embarrassment by explaining that her toplessness was not inherently sexual.

Prosecutors claimed in court that Buchanan purposefully stripped in front of the children while under the influence of alcohol and told her husband she'd only put her clothes back on if she saw his penis. The children's biological mother said news of the incident "alarmed" her enough to file a report with the Division of Child and Family Services. Prosecutors decided to pursue the case, even though they were unable to corroborate important parts of the story, such as the date of the incident.

Buchanan was charged with three misdemeanor counts of lewdness involving a child. Her husband escaped charges as Utah's lewdness statute defines lewdness as the exposure of "genitals, the female breast below the top of the areola, the buttocks, the anus, or the pubic area." If convicted, Buchanan risked having her name added to a sex offender registry for 10 years.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the statute. It argued that the inclusion of the female breast was discrimination based on gender and sexuality, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Utah Third District Judge Kara Pettit rejected that argument in January.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported on Tuesday that Buchanan, in order to avoid the sex offender registry, has pleaded guilty to one class B misdemeanor lewdness charge. The charge will be dismissed if Buchanan remains out of trouble for a year and pays $600.

Prosecutors maintain they were in the right. 

"This case has never been about nudity in one's home. Instead, it is about the responsibility we have towards others," West Valley City Attorney Ryan Robinson told the Tribune. She said the case was resolved "when Ms. Buchanan took responsibility for her actions."

The next time Buchanan thinks to undress within the privacy of her own home, the threat of being placed on an inconsistent and overzealous registry will surely remind her of that responsibility. 

NEXT: Bloomberg Rewrites His History of Doggedly Defending Stop and Frisk

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. Boobies are bad!

    1. Just the aureola and nipples. Cleavage and side boob is fine. Otherwise every female celebrity under sixty would get arrested and convicted. Off course nipples slips by celebrities and full boob exposure by breast feeding females is fiercely defended. Personally I see nothing obscene about the female breast.

    2. What are people gonna do when genetic engineering allows us to place nipples anywhere on the body?

      1. I’m pretty sure we can do that now.

      2. Band-aids? It is what women use now if they go bra-less but don’t want chill bumps showing.

      3. having extra nipples in random spots is actually a pretty common mutation… If I have one on my arm or face, does that make me indecent?

  2. Before siding with the ACLU on this one, ask if the uniform standard should be applied across offenses. My understanding is that grabbing a man by the chest is considered assault, but grabbing a woman by the chest is sexual assault and carries significantly greater penalties. Should that standard be changed, as well? I’m kind of neutral on it, but I do think you either bless double standards or you don’t. Imposing a double standard on double standards seems a little over the top.

    1. Yeah, you ain’t gettin’ no takers on that one. Not when it comes time to actually file charges. We are headed in the opposite direction on that front.

    2. Is it a matter of principle that you must lack a brain?

      Equality does not mean that you become a total moron.

    3. So join the forces saying the expired equal rights amendment actually got passed – – – –

  3. …and pays $600.

    The endgame is revealed.

    1. That’s more than likely just the fine. Court costs, fees, etc., will probably double it to $1200.00.

      On top of that she still has to pay her defense attorney. That custody case has gotten ugly too, I’m sure, because if bio mom called police and pushed for prosecution on that, you know she’s using it to try to get the kids away from dad. (And as for dad, he knows he can never trust bio mom ever again.)

      Plenty of epic dumbassery to go around.

      1. Yeah, that was my thought too. “Who called the police in their own home? Oh, the biological mom? Yeah, get ready for the civil suit folks!”

    2. sex in vorarlberg is always my place to go for having fun chat so check it out

  4. And THIS is why we need the expired equal rights amendment implemented immediately!
    Such sexist legislation will immediately become unconstitutional, so that men, women, women who are men, and men who are women, and everybody else in some new category can be as nude as everybody else.
    Of course, like actually balancing the federal budget by tripling taxes, the thought of them saying everyone has to cover up will not be considered – – – – – – –

  5. Prosecutors decided to pursue the case, even though they were unable to corroborate important parts of the story, such as the date of the incident.

    Everyone involved was so traumatized by “the incident” they couldn’t remember when it happened?

    1. Blaséy-Ford?

    2. Prosecutors apparently were not impressed by the notion that they were merely being used as pawns in a bitter custody dispute following a nasty divorce.

      I’m getting to the age where I know a lot of people who have to deal with ex’s. There are a shocking number of people who have to deal with crazy in that situation. I would have expected that there are spurned ex-spouses who are vindictive, but I’m totally shocked at the number of spouses who were the “bad guy” that did the cheating and leaving who are also still vindictive.

      One dude left his (pretty decent) wife and (really good) kids and moved about 5 hours away. He was a complete jerk the entire time, didn’t come see his kids for most of a year until he learned that it meant he had to spend more cash on child support…. and now he’s just a petty jerk any chance he gets. He’d definitely call the police on her if he got half a chance.

      I guess my point is that people are much worse than I expect them to be.

      1. No matter how low you think people can go, they’ll surprise you by going lower. OTH, not matter how good you think people can be, they’ll surprise you being better.

      2. Yep. Ain’t love grand.

      3. “Prosecutors apparently were not impressed by the notion that they were merely being used as pawns in a bitter custody dispute following a nasty divorce.”

        They weren’t impressed, they were turned on.

        “The children’s biological mother said news of the incident “alarmed” her enough to file a report with the Division of Child and Family Services.”

        #FakeNews always buries the lede.
        “Ex Wife Terrorizes Ex Husband and New Family With Sex Accusations”

  6. Men also have nipples. So it’s illegal to show the parts that are the same for both sexes, but legal to show parts that are different. Logically, should it be the other way round?

  7. They weren’t her kids.

    Respect parental rights. Both parents.

    1. It was her house.

      1. Agreed, you should be able to appear in any state of dress, or undress in your own home.

        1. So, if the neighbors’ kids are over for your kids 5th birthday party, it is your prerogative to dance naked on the table over the cake? You might want to rethink that. Actually, you might want to “think” that, since it does not appear to have received much processing in the first place.

          1. No but when its your step kids its fine.

            This is a stupid ruling.

      2. Yeah, but if bio-mom doesn’t want the kids seeing boob at their age, I don’t think it’s step-mom’s place to give the kids a lecture on how bio-mom is wrong and then demand that dad show them his penis.

        Not sure it’s a crime, but then again, that guy in the park in the raincoat said he wasn’t committing a crime either.

  8. Ever hear to sides to a story and they are both equally ridiculous so you kinda say wtf?

  9. What responsibility?!

  10. I am boss of my own will. Come to join under link to earn $75 per hour by watching tv with family in spare time. Earn as much as you spent time. If so please copy the link and full fill your dream……… Read more  

  11. Me, I’m telling bio mom to get the fuck off the property next time she shows up. Tell her to wait on the sidewalk for the kids to come out. Call the cops if she doesn’t do it. Play dirty. She did.

  12. Pics or it didn’t happen.

  13. Wow, there’s a lot of parents that walk around in their houses naked with kids around. Some celebrities talked about it with their parents. Since when is nudity in the house such a crime? This law needs to end.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.