A Practitioner’s Guide to Sealing and Expungement in Massachusetts

A Massachusetts criminal case that ends without a conviction still produces a record. The dismissal, the nolle prosequi, or the acquittal remains in the court file, in the probation records, and in the criminal offender record information system until it is sealed or expunged. The remedies differ in kind. A sealed record continues to exist but is withheld from most requestors; sealing is governed by G. L. c. 276, §§ 100A through 100C. An expunged record ceases to exist; G. L. c. 276, § 100E defines expungement as the “permanent erasure or destruction” of a record, so that no court, criminal justice agency, or other government agency maintains it.

This article treats both remedies at the practitioner level: discretionary sealing after Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296 (2014), the waiting periods under § 100A, expungement under §§ 100E through 100U, and the sequence for a client whose case ended in a dismissal or a continuance without a finding. A companion article on this site addresses the records of Massachusetts 209A and 258E protective orders, which are subject to additional limits.

Sealing and Expungement Distinguished

The distinction controls planning because expungement is purely statutory. In Commonwealth v. Boe, 456 Mass. 337 (2010), the Supreme Judicial Court held that a judge had no authority to order the commissioner of probation to expunge the record of a dismissed case even though the complaint had issued by mistake: the record accurately showed what occurred, inherent judicial power reaches only the correction of inaccurate records, and the remedy the Legislature provided was sealing under § 100C. The sections added by the 2018 criminal justice reform legislation, §§ 100E through 100U, are the only source of expungement authority; sealing is available for nearly every disposition.

Mandatory Sealing After Acquittals, No Bills, and Findings of No Probable Cause

The first paragraph of § 100C requires sealing without any showing where the defendant was found not guilty by a court or a jury, a grand jury returned a no bill, or a court found no probable cause: the commissioner of probation, the clerk, and the probation officers shall seal their records of the appearance and disposition. The paragraph does not apply if the defendant makes a written request to the commissioner not to seal.

In Commonwealth v. J.F., 491 Mass. 824 (2023), the Supreme Judicial Court held that these records are not subject to a First Amendment presumption of access, that the first paragraph’s plain language abrogated the common law presumption, and that the mandate applies charge by charge: acquitted counts must be sealed even where other counts in the same case ended differently.

Discretionary Sealing of Dismissals and Nolle Prosequi Cases

The second paragraph of § 100C reaches the dispositions defense work most often produces. Where a nolle prosequi or a dismissal has entered and “it appears to the court that substantial justice would best be served,” the court shall direct the clerk to seal the records. A dismissal after a successful continuance without a finding qualifies: the petitioner in Pon admitted to sufficient facts on charges of operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of property damage, received a continuance without a finding under G. L. c. 90, § 24D, and obtained the dismissal a year later.

In Pon, the court discarded the stringent test of Commonwealth v. Doe, 420 Mass. 142 (1995), held that these records are subject to a common law rather than a constitutional presumption of access, and concluded that a petitioner satisfies the standard by establishing “good cause.” The judge balances the public interest in access against the petitioner’s and the Commonwealth’s interests in privacy and reintegration, Pon, 469 Mass. at 314-315, considering the disadvantages the petitioner identifies from the availability of the record, evidence of rehabilitation, the petitioner’s circumstances at the time of the offense, the passage of time, and the nature of and reasons for the disposition.

The procedure rewards careful papers. The petition must set forth facts demonstrating good cause, a judge may decide on the pleadings whether a prima facie showing has been made, and only then does the matter proceed to a merits hearing with public notice. Pon, 469 Mass. at 322. Review is for abuse of discretion. An affidavit naming specific lost jobs, housing denials, or licensing obstacles, and explaining the disposition, supports good cause; a bare form does not. In J.F., the court described as persuasive the argument that a petitioner never convicted should not have to produce evidence of rehabilitation.

Waiting Period Sealing Under Sections 100A and 100B

Section 100A permits sealing by administrative request to the commissioner of probation, with no judge, no hearing, and no good cause showing. The commissioner shall comply if the court appearance and disposition, including any incarceration or custody, occurred not less than 3 years before the request for a misdemeanor record and not less than 7 years for a felony record; no finding of guilt entered within that period, apart from motor vehicle offenses with fines of 50 dollars or less; no disqualifying record exists in another jurisdiction; and the record contains no convictions of excluded offenses. The section applies to dispositions of all offenses, including non-convictions.

The exclusions and extensions matter. Convictions under G. L. c. 140, §§ 121 to 131H, and under chapter 268 or chapter 268A, are not sealable under § 100A, except for resisting arrest convictions. Sex offenses as defined in G. L. c. 6, § 178C are ineligible for 15 years after disposition and while a duty to register continues, and a person ever classified as a level 2 or level 3 sex offender may never seal sex offenses. A violation of an abuse prevention order under G. L. c. 209A, § 7, or a harassment prevention order under G. L. c. 258E, § 9, is treated as a felony, so the 7 year period applies. Delinquency records are sealed under § 100B after 3 years; a sealed file is reported to police and court agencies only as a “sealed delinquency record over three years old.”

The Effect of Sealing and Access to Sealed Records

After sealing, the client’s lawful answers change. Under §§ 100A and 100C, an applicant for employment, housing, or an occupational or professional license may answer “no record” to inquiries about prior arrests or criminal court appearances, and applications asking about criminal history must carry a statement saying so. A sealed record shall not disqualify the person from public employment, and the commissioner and the clerks report to authorized requestors other than law enforcement agencies, the courts, and appointing authorities that no record exists.

The limits matter as much. Under G. L. c. 6, § 172, criminal justice agencies obtain all criminal offender record information, including sealed records, for their duties, and firearms licensing authorities under G. L. c. 140, § 121 obtain sealed records for licensing decisions. Under § 100A, a sealed record remains usable in sentencing for a later offense, and in custody, guardianship, divorce, paternity, and abuse prevention litigation a party may move to introduce another party’s sealed record on issues of custody, abuse, or safety, subject to in camera review and a closed hearing.

Counsel should also measure sealing against what standard requestors receive: an employer with standard access obtains felony convictions for 10 years and misdemeanor convictions for 5 years after disposition, plus pending charges, and convictions for murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and sex offenses punishable by state prison remain visible permanently unless sealed under § 100A. A sealing order operates on official record systems; it does not remove press coverage or data collected earlier by private screening companies, a limit clients should hear stated plainly.

Time-Based Expungement for Offenses Before Age 21

The 2018 legislation created two expungement categories; the first is record based and age limited. Under §§ 100F, 100G, and 100H, a petitioner with not more than 2 records may petition the commissioner of probation to expunge them: § 100F reaches delinquency and youthful offender adjudications, § 100G reaches convictions, and § 100H reaches records with no adjudication or conviction. Multiple offenses arising out of the same incident count as one. Under § 100I, the commissioner certifies eligibility only if the offense occurred before the petitioner’s 21st birthday, not less than 7 years have passed for a felony or 3 years for a misdemeanor, and the record is otherwise clean, with no other findings of guilt, adjudications, or pending matters in any state or federal court apart from minor motor vehicle offenses.

The certified petition proceeds to the court where the case was disposed; the district attorney may object, within 30 days under § 100H, an objection produces a hearing, and without one the court may act on the papers. The court decides according to the “best interests of justice,” enters written findings, and shall deny any petition failing §§ 100I and 100J. Section 100J excludes 20 categories of offenses, including offenses resulting in death or serious bodily injury, offenses committed with intent to cause either or while armed with a dangerous weapon, offenses against elderly or disabled persons, sex offenses, any felony under chapter 265, assault and battery on a family or household member under G. L. c. 265, § 13M, operating under the influence under G. L. c. 90, § 24, firearms offenses under G. L. c. 140, §§ 121 to 131Q and G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a) through (d) and § 10E, and violations of protective orders under chapters 208, 209, 209A, 209C, and 258E. Between the age limit, the 2 record limit, and the § 100J list, sealing remains the remedy for most clients.

Expungement for Fraud, Error, or Decriminalized Conduct Under Section 100K

The second category has no age limit, waiting period, or record cap; § 100K begins “[n]otwithstanding the requirements of section 100I and section 100J,” so the exclusion list does not govern it. A court may order expungement on clear and convincing evidence that the record was created as a result of one of six grounds: false identification or the unauthorized use or theft of the petitioner’s identity; an offense no longer a crime at the time of expungement, unless its elements remain a crime under a different designation; demonstrable errors by law enforcement, by civilian or expert witnesses, or by court employees; or demonstrable fraud perpetrated upon the court.

The inquiry proceeds in two steps: the judge must first find an enumerated ground by clear and convincing evidence, and only then decides whether expungement is in the best interests of justice under § 100K (b), with a hearing on request of either party and written findings on any order. The Supreme Judicial Court has described § 100K (a) as setting “a very high bar”: the record must pertain to a now decriminalized offense or be the product of fraud or demonstrable error. Commonwealth v. K.W., 490 Mass. 619, 625 (2022). Decriminalization means the conduct itself is no longer criminal, so that a person engaging in the same conduct today would commit no criminal act. K.W., 490 Mass. at 629.

Under § 100K1/4, a court shall, within 30 days of the petition, order expungement of a record created by possession or cultivation of an amount of marijuana decriminalized by chapter 387 of the acts of 2008, chapter 334 of the acts of 2016, or chapter 55 of the acts of 2017, or by possession with intent to distribute or distribution based on those amounts. Upon an expungement order under this section or §§ 100F through 100H, the clerk’s office provides a certified copy of the order, the docket sheets, and the criminal complaint, which the client should preserve.

The Effect of Expungement

An expunged record is not hidden; it is destroyed, and where a document also concerns another person, the petitioner’s identifying information is permanently obliterated. Under § 100N, an expunged record shall not disqualify the person in any application for employment with a state, county, or municipal agency, is inadmissible in court and administrative proceedings, and is excluded from licensure suitability determinations; no agency may directly or indirectly require its disclosure; and the applicant may answer “no record” to inquiries about arrests, court appearances, adjudications, or convictions. Under § 100O, the petition and the order are not public records, and within 60 days the court and the commissioner expunge even their own records of the proceedings.

The Sequence for a Dismissal or a Continuance Without a Finding

The work begins with the record, not the petition. Counsel should obtain the client’s probation record and criminal offender record information and read each docket, because the remedy depends on the exact disposition and level of each charge. A continuance without a finding is not a conviction, but until the case is dismissed under G. L. c. 278, § 18 it is reported to employers as a pending charge; counsel should confirm the dismissal entered. For any count ending in a not guilty finding, a no bill, or no probable cause, the first paragraph of § 100C imposes the sealing duty without a petition; where such a count remains visible, the correction is a request under that paragraph, and J.F. requires the result count by count.

For a dismissal or a nolle prosequi, counsel chooses between the two sealing mechanisms. A § 100C petition in the court that heard the case may be filed at once, supported by an affidavit documenting the specific disadvantages the record has caused, the client’s circumstances at the offense and since, and the reasons the case ended without a conviction, so the judge can find a prima facie showing on the papers. A § 100A request requires no showing but requires the waiting period, 3 years for a misdemeanor and 7 years for a felony, with a clean intervening record. A client losing applications now files under § 100C; a client with an older record may find the administrative request simpler and more certain.

Expungement screening comes last. If every offense occurred before the client’s 21st birthday, the record fits within the 2 record limit, the offense does not appear on the § 100J list, and the waiting period has run, a time-based petition is worth filing, because destruction is a stronger result than concealment. If the record resulted from identity theft, demonstrable error, fraud on the court, or conduct since decriminalized, § 100K permits a petition at any age and without waiting. For everyone else, sealing is the remedy.

The Bottom Line for Referring Counsel

Massachusetts law supplies three sealing mechanisms for a non-conviction record: mandatory sealing under § 100C, first paragraph, for acquittals, no bills, and findings of no probable cause; discretionary good cause sealing under § 100C, second paragraph, for dismissals and nolle prosequi cases under Pon; and administrative sealing under § 100A after 3 or 7 years. Expungement under §§ 100E through 100U remains the narrow, complete remedy for qualifying young offense records and for records that should never have existed. Attorney Serpa prepares and argues sealing and expungement petitions in the Boston and Quincy courts.

Referring counsel may reach Attorney Serpa at 617.936.0201.

Last Reviewed: July 2026