Sealing Dismissals and CWOFs in Massachusetts: A Practitioner’s Guide

Massachusetts law often permits a person to obtain the sealing of a dismissal, nolle prosequi, or completed continuance without a finding. The correct procedure depends on the exact disposition. Some non-conviction records must be sealed without a discretionary hearing. Other dismissals require a petition to the court. An older record may qualify for administrative sealing through the Commissioner of Probation.

This guide explains the sequence a lawyer should follow when a Massachusetts case ends without a conviction, with particular attention to dismissals, nolle prosequi dispositions, and completed CWOFs. The firm’s Massachusetts sealing and expungement standards page contains the detailed waiting periods, eligibility rules, statutory exclusions, and expungement grounds. The separate guide to how Massachusetts judges decide sealing and expungement petitions explains the judicial burdens and evidence.

The Docket and Exact Disposition

Counsel’s first decision depends on the docket. Counsel should obtain a current Massachusetts CORI, the court docket, and the disposition of every charge. Different sealing procedures apply to an acquittal, no bill, finding of no probable cause, dismissal, nolle prosequi, and completed CWOF.

Counsel should also confirm that the court entered the expected disposition. A continuance without a finding remains pending during the continuance period. The continuance without a finding becomes a dismissal only after the defendant satisfies the conditions and the court enters the dismissal. Counsel who assumes the wrong disposition may invoke the wrong procedure or seek relief from the wrong decision-maker.

Acquittals, No Bills, and Findings of No Probable Cause

The first paragraph of M.G.L. c. 276, § 100C requires sealing when a court or jury finds the defendant not guilty, a grand jury returns a no bill, or a court finds no probable cause. The defendant may prevent sealing by submitting a written request not to seal the record. Otherwise, the statute does not require the defendant to prove good cause.

Commonwealth v. J.F., 491 Mass. 824 (2023), confirms that the statute requires sealing for acquittals, no bills, and findings of no probable cause. J.F. also confirms that the statute applies charge by charge. Counsel should identify any acquitted count that remains visible and request the correction supported by the docket and disposition record.

Dismissals and Nolle Prosequi Dispositions

The second paragraph of § 100C applies to a dismissal or nolle prosequi. The person petitions the court that handled the case. The judge may order sealing when substantial justice would best be served.

Under Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296 (2014), the petitioner must establish good cause. The petition should identify the concrete disadvantage caused by access to the record and explain how sealing would address it. Employment or licensing correspondence, a housing decision, an educational requirement, work history, and evidence of rehabilitation may support the request. The judicial-decision guide addresses the Pon factors and the evidence a judge evaluates.

The Sequence After a Continuance Without a Finding

A continuance without a finding is not a conviction under Massachusetts law, but the case remains pending until the court enters the dismissal. Counsel should review the docket at the end of the continuance period and confirm that the court dismissed every charge.

After dismissal, the person may petition the court under § 100C without waiting three or seven years. The dismissal does not make sealing automatic. The petition must satisfy the discretionary standard that applies to dismissals. A person whose record is old enough and satisfies every statutory condition may instead use the administrative process under § 100A.

A person facing a present employment, licensing, housing, or educational problem may need a § 100C petition supported by specific evidence. A person whose record satisfies the administrative waiting period and all other requirements may prefer the direct request to the Commissioner of Probation.

Documents Supporting a § 100C Petition

Counsel should ordinarily submit the docket, the disposition record, an affidavit that explains the relevant facts, and documents supporting the disadvantage the petitioner identifies. The affidavit should state what the publicly available record prevents the petitioner from doing and why sealing would address that problem.

The petition should also explain why the case ended without a conviction. A dismissal based on missing evidence, a witness problem, a legal defect, or the completion of agreed conditions may require different supporting facts. The court should not have to infer the disposition or the reason for the request from an incomplete record.

Administrative Sealing After the Waiting Period

M.G.L. c. 276, § 100A allows a person to request administrative sealing from the Commissioner of Probation after the applicable waiting period. The request does not require a judge or a showing of good cause, but the record must satisfy every statutory condition and cannot fall within an exclusion. The standards page explains the three-year and seven-year periods, later-record restrictions, sex-offense rules, and excluded convictions.

Eligibility for Expungement

Expungement applies to a narrower group of records. Time-based expungement depends on the person’s age at the offense, waiting period, record history, and the statutory exclusion list. Section 100K separately addresses records caused by specified forms of false identification, error, fraud, or conduct that is no longer criminal. The standards page explains the expungement requirements and what an expungement order removes.

What Sealing Changes

Sealing limits access to the covered Massachusetts criminal record but does not destroy it. For inquiries governed by the Massachusetts sealing statutes, a person with a sealed record generally may answer “no record.” Courts, criminal-justice agencies, and other authorized decision-makers may retain access for purposes the law permits. Sealing does not remove news coverage, private records collected before sealing, immigration consequences, or a separate licensing or school record.

A criminal record is also separate from the statewide civil registry for 209A restraining orders and 258E harassment prevention orders. The firm’s page on removing a registry entry for a 209A restraining order or a 258E harassment prevention order explains that distinct procedure.

For Referring Counsel

Counsel should first identify the disposition of each count and the statute that governs it. Counsel should rely on the docket, CORI, and supporting documents to decide whether to request mandatory sealing, file a discretionary § 100C petition, use the § 100A administrative process, or screen the record for expungement.

Attorney Joe Serpa prepares and argues Massachusetts sealing and expungement petitions. Referring counsel may call 617.936.0201. A prospective client may also contact Serpa Law Office for a confidential consultation.