Dismissed Domestic Charges and Your Massachusetts Record

A Massachusetts domestic violence arrest creates records in three separate systems before the first court date ends. The three systems are the police department’s confidential incident file, the court and probation records that become CORI at arraignment, and the statewide domestic violence record keeping system, where a written abuse designation is entered at the bail hearing. Each system has its own statute, its own access rules, and its own rules on which entries are removed and which remain.

A dismissal ends the prosecution, but none of the records in the three systems is removed automatically after the dismissal. The table below shows what remains in each system after a dismissal and when sealing becomes available. This page explains when each record is created, who can see it, what standard governs it, and what sealing and expungement can and cannot remove afterward. This page is the criminal-case companion to the firm’s page on expunging a 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order from the registry, which covers the civil order side.

The Three Systems That Keep Records of a Domestic Violence Case

The first system is the police file, which holds the incident report, the booking records, the photographs, and the recordings made the night of the arrest. Massachusetts law requires police departments to keep domestic violence reports confidential, so the police file never appears on the public police log. However, the police department keeps the file permanently. The second system is the court record.

The probation department enters the case in the court activity record system maintained by the Office of the Commissioner of Probation as soon as the defendant is arraigned. The court activity record entry is criminal offender record information, CORI, under M.G.L. c. 6, § 167.

The third system is the statewide domestic violence record keeping system, the DVRS, a confidential registry that the Commissioner of Probation has maintained since 1992. The DVRS holds 209A restraining orders (abuse prevention orders), 258E harassment prevention orders, and violations of those orders. Since 2014, the DVRS has also held a written statement in every criminal case in which a judge makes a written ruling that abuse is alleged. A single arrest for assault and battery on a family or household member ordinarily produces entries in all three systems within 24 hours.

The firm’s law update State and Federal Records of Massachusetts 209A and 258E Protective Orders explains the records of civil protective orders. The update covers what happens after a 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order is vacated and when fraud-on-the-court expungement is available.

Records Created at the Arrest: The Police File

The records of the arrest itself are the incident report, the arrest report, booking photographs, fingerprints, the booking sheet, the 911 recording and dispatch log, and, in many departments, body camera video. Two statutes require police departments to treat domestic violence arrest records differently from the records of almost every other arrest.

Under M.G.L. c. 41, § 97D, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, along with reports of rape and sexual assault, are not public records. Police departments must maintain those reports in a manner that assures their confidentiality. Unlawful disclosure of the reports is itself a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

Access is limited to the people named in M.G.L. c. 41, § 97D. The people with access are the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim, prosecutors, victim-witness advocates, domestic violence and sexual assault counselors, law enforcement, and bail officials.

Under M.G.L. c. 41, § 98F, the daily police log, the document reporters check each morning, is a public record. However, the statute requires departments to keep separate, non-public log entries for domestic violence responses and for arrests for assault or assault and battery on a family or household member and for violations of protective orders. The separate log entries shall not be a public record and shall not be disclosed to the public.

As a result, a domestic violence arrest does not appear on the public log at all. By contrast, an arrest for a bar fight the same night appears on the public log. The confidentiality protects the complainant. Because of the confidentiality, the arrest is also not visible to employers, landlords, or the press through police records. The case becomes visible to the public at the next step, in the courthouse.

Arraignment: The Moment CORI Begins

CORI is defined by M.G.L. c. 6, § 167 as records compiled by Massachusetts criminal justice agencies concerning an identifiable individual that relate to the subjects specified in the statute. The specified subjects are the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, pre-trial proceedings, judicial proceedings, dangerousness hearings under M.G.L. c. 276, § 58A at which the defendant was detained or released on conditions, sentencing, incarceration, and release.

The record that affects a person later is the court and probation entry, which is created at arraignment. At arraignment the clerk dockets the charge and the probation department enters it into the court activity record system. From the day of arraignment, a background check can return a CORI entry. The entry exists whether the case ends in a conviction, a continuance without a finding, or a dismissal. The entry is updated to show the outcome but is not removed.

The firm’s page on Massachusetts criminal records explains who sees what at each level of iCORI access.

Two features of domestic violence cases make arraignment harder to avoid than in other misdemeanor cases. First, most misdemeanors charged by application rather than arrest go to a clerk magistrate hearing. A case resolved at the clerk magistrate hearing ends without an arraignment and without a CORI entry. A defendant arrested for a domestic violence offense does not get a clerk magistrate hearing, because an arrested defendant goes directly to arraignment.

Second, the 2014 domestic violence act amended M.G.L. c. 276, § 57. The amendment applies to a person 18 or older who is arrested for an act constituting abuse, for assault and battery on a family or household member under c. 265, § 13M, or for violation of a protective order. A person covered by the amendment shall not be admitted to bail sooner than 6 hours after arrest, except by a judge in open court. The six-hour hold and the arraignment therefore take place automatically after the arrest.

A person charged by summons rather than arrest can still have a clerk magistrate hearing. A person who wins at the clerk magistrate hearing never has a CORI entry created for the charge.

The Section 56A Abuse Designation and the DVRS

The record most defendants have never heard of is created at the bail stage. M.G.L. c. 276, § 56A was enacted by St. 2014, c. 260 as part of the comprehensive domestic violence act. The statute requires an inquiry before a judge releases, discharges, or admits to bail any person arrested and charged with a crime against the person or property of another. The judge shall inquire of the Commonwealth whether abuse, as defined in M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1, is alleged to have occurred immediately prior to or in conjunction with the charged crime.

Abuse for this purpose means attempting to cause or causing physical harm, placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm, or causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat, or duress, between family or household members. The Commonwealth files a preliminary written statement if the Commonwealth alleges abuse. The judge then makes a written ruling that abuse is alleged. The statement is entered into the statewide domestic violence record keeping system.

The entry of the abuse designation is not automatic. In Commonwealth v. Dossantos, 472 Mass. 74 (2015), the Supreme Judicial Court held that before making the written ruling, a judge must inquire into and be satisfied that there is an adequate factual basis for the Commonwealth’s allegation of abuse.

The judge is not required to take evidence or hold a separate hearing. The determination is ordinarily made at arraignment together with bail. However, the record must show that the judge found a sufficient factual basis rather than simply accepting the prosecutor’s assertion. Defense counsel therefore has a real opportunity to contest the factual basis at the first appearance, using the same police report the Commonwealth relies on. A designation that is never entered in the DVRS never has to be removed.

The 56A statement is confidential by design. By the statute’s own terms, the statement is not criminal offender record information, is not a public record, and is not open to public inspection. The statement is also not admissible before a grand jury or a court in the case in which the Commonwealth filed it.

The DVRS that holds the statement, created by St. 1992, c. 188, § 7, is available to judges, clerk-magistrates, and law enforcement agencies, not to the public. Employers and landlords cannot see DVRS records. However, every judge who later considers a petition for a 209A restraining order against the same person, sets bail in a later case, or hears a dangerousness motion can see the DVRS records. The record search that M.G.L. c. 209A, § 7 requires when a new petition is filed will also return the 56A statement.

What Happens to the 56A Statement When the Case Ends

Section 56A contains its own removal rule. The rule is narrower than most defendants expect. The court shall remove the preliminary written statement from the DVRS if the defendant is found not guilty, if a grand jury returns a no bill, or if a court finds no probable cause. The statute then states that a dismissal shall not be eligible for removal from the statewide domestic violence record keeping system.

In Dossantos, the Supreme Judicial Court read the provision to mean that the abuse designation stays in the system after a charge ends in dismissal. The statute contains no exception for the dismissal entered after a defendant successfully completes a continuance without a finding. The statute also does not mention nolle prosequi at all.

The court removes the abuse designation from the DVRS after an acquittal, but the designation stays in place after a dismissal. Many clients leave the courtroom without knowing that an acquittal and a dismissal have different effects in the DVRS. The difference between an acquittal and a dismissal should be part of every discussion about how to resolve a domestic violence case. The difference is also a reason to try a winnable case rather than accept a dismissal just before trial.

What Happens to the Record When a Domestic Violence Charge Is Dismissed?

A dismissal ends the prosecution without a conviction. The records of the case remain after a dismissal. Each record system has its own rule for removing records. The four answers below summarize what happens to each record after a dismissal.

The court and CORI record. The docket entry and the CORI entry remain after the dismissal. Both entries show the charge and the disposition until a judge seals them. Sealing a dismissal under the second paragraph of M.G.L. c. 276, § 100C is discretionary, available without a waiting period, and decided on the good cause standard explained in Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296 (2014). Time-based sealing under § 100A is available after the three-year and seven-year waiting periods.

The police and booking records. The incident report was never public. M.G.L. c. 41, § 97D requires police departments to keep domestic violence reports confidential, and § 98F requires them to keep the arrest off the public police log. The file is not destroyed after a dismissal. The file stays available to law enforcement and prosecutors. The file is read again if a later case arises.

The statewide domestic violence record keeping system. The abuse designation stays. Section 56A permits removal only after a finding of not guilty, a no bill, or a finding of no probable cause, and provides that a dismissal is not eligible for removal. Commonwealth v. Dossantos, 472 Mass. 74 (2015). The designation also stays after the dismissal that ends a completed continuance without a finding. The designation remains even after a judge seals the court record.

Any civil 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order record. An order entered alongside the criminal case has its own registry entry under its own rules. The dismissal of the criminal case does not affect the order’s registry entry. Vacating the order does not remove the entry either. Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153 (1997). Local police records of a vacated order are destroyed under M.G.L. c. 209A, § 7, but the statewide entry stays available to judges. The statewide entry can be removed only under the narrow fraud on the court standard.

The 209A Restraining Order Registry Entry That Often Accompanies the Criminal Case

Most domestic violence arrests are accompanied by an emergency or ex parte 209A restraining order (abuse prevention order). Every such order is itself entered into the DVRS, along with any violation. Under Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153 (1997), an order remains in the registry even after it is vacated or expires. Judges who hear later petitions see the whole history.

M.G.L. c. 209A, § 7 directs law enforcement agencies to destroy their records of a vacated order, but the court’s registry entry is retained. Removal from the registry itself is available only in the rare case of fraud on the court. The Supreme Judicial Court held in Piper P. v. Barron B., SJC-13854, that a court cannot expunge a 258E harassment prevention order from the statewide registry after a judge vacates the order for insufficient evidence, and that a judge may expunge the record only where the person who sought the order obtained it through fraud on the court, proven by clear and convincing evidence.

The firm’s pages on the fraud on the court standard and on terminating or modifying a 209A restraining order cover the civil order records in depth. The FAQs on the fraud on the court standard explain the only recognized way to remove an order from the registry.

A criminal violation of a 209A restraining order results in a new CORI entry and a new DVRS violation entry.

Sealing, Expungement, and What Each One Removes

Sealing and expungement apply to different records. Neither sealing nor expungement covers every record. Time-based sealing under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100A is available by petition to the Commissioner of Probation after 3 years for a misdemeanor and 7 years for a felony, measured from disposition or release from custody. The decision on a qualifying petition is largely administrative, but an affirmative petition by the petitioner is required.

Discretionary sealing under § 100C is available earlier for cases that ended in a dismissal or nolle prosequi. Under Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296 (2014), the petitioner must show good cause, with the judge balancing the disadvantages the record creates against the public’s interest in access. A sealed case comes back on standard employer background checks as no record. The firm’s pages on sealing and expunging a criminal record and on the sealing and expungement standards explain both kinds of sealing. The CORI sealing FAQs answer the common questions.

Expungement, the actual destruction of the record under M.G.L. c. 276, §§ 100E to 100U, is narrower still. Expungement is mostly unavailable for domestic violence charges. Section 100J excludes from time-based expungement any offense resulting in or intended to cause serious bodily injury and any offense committed while armed with a dangerous weapon. Section 100J also excludes any violation of a 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order, any violation of M.G.L. c. 265, § 13M, assault and battery on a family or household member, and all c. 265 felonies.

A domestic violence conviction is therefore not eligible for time-based expungement. Sealing is the realistic remedy. Sealing applies only to the court and probation record. Sealing does not apply to the DVRS. The 56A designation has its own grounds for removal, described above. A sealed dismissal is still a dismissal for DVRS purposes. The designation stays in the DVRS even while the CORI report shows no record. Every judge who checks the DVRS can see the designation.

Federal Rap Sheets, Firearms Databases, and the Border

Federal systems also hold records of a Massachusetts domestic violence case. Fingerprints taken at booking are reported into the FBI’s national identification records, the federal rap sheet that federal agencies, military recruiters, and immigration officials read. A Massachusetts sealing order applies to Massachusetts records. The FBI identification record is a separate federal record with its own rules.

A person may obtain a copy of the FBI identification record by submitting fingerprints under 28 C.F.R. § 16.32. Under 28 C.F.R. § 16.34, corrections, including reporting a Massachusetts seal, are made through the agency that contributed the information, not through the FBI directly. After any Massachusetts sealing, the person should order a copy of the federal record and confirm that the record shows the sealed status.

The firearms consequences are federal as well as state. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. A Massachusetts conviction of assault and battery on a family or household member ordinarily qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Under § 922(g)(8), a person subject to certain court orders is likewise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. The order must have issued after notice and a hearing and must restrain harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner, with a credible threat finding or an express prohibition on physical force. A 209A restraining order extended after the two-party hearing commonly meets the requirements of § 922(g)(8). The Supreme Court upheld the order-based prohibition in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

The federal prohibitions are enforced through the national instant check system at every gun purchase, alongside the Massachusetts license to carry consequences that begin with the charge itself.

Protection orders are recorded and enforced outside Massachusetts. An active 209A restraining order is entered into the national criminal justice databases, including the protection order file that officers in every state query. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2265, courts and police of every state, territory, and tribe must enforce a Massachusetts order as if it were their own, with no registration required in the enforcing state.

A driver stopped in another state can expect the order to appear on the officer’s screen. Customs officers also query the federal systems at reentry. As a result, customs officers can ask questions at the airport even about an arrest or order that no employer could ever see. For a non-citizen, the questions at the airport become admissibility questions. Other countries apply their own entry rules to criminal records. International travelers with pending cases should ask counsel about the entry rules of the destination country before booking a trip.

Expunging or Sealing a Federal Record

No Massachusetts court can seal or expunge a federal record. Federal law provides little relief. There is no general federal expungement statute. Under United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007), a federal court in the First Circuit may not order expungement on purely equitable grounds, even for an acquitted defendant.

The narrow forms of relief that remain are the under-21 simple possession expungement of 18 U.S.C. § 3607, relief tied to an invalid conviction, a presidential pardon that forgives without erasing, and accuracy corrections under 28 C.F.R. § 16.34. The four forms of relief rarely apply to a domestic violence case.

No Massachusetts court can order the FBI to change its copy of the record. The state can only request the change under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100T. A federal file that does not yet reflect the change is corrected under 28 C.F.R. § 16.34. The firm’s page on how a Massachusetts seal affects the FBI’s copy of the record explains the process.

A domestic violence defendant limits what the records show by acting at the beginning of the case, at arraignment and in the disposition, not by seeking erasure afterward.

The Records in Bail, Orders, and Background Checks

The three systems are consulted at different moments. The Commonwealth relies on the confidential police file for its evidence and its probable cause narrative at every stage of the criminal case. The defense obtains the file in discovery. The firm’s page on domestic violence procedure from arrest through trial explains how the file is used. The CORI entry is what employers, landlords, and licensing boards see, at access levels set by statute.

Judges see the DVRS records at the next bail argument, at a dangerousness hearing under § 58A, and whenever a petition for a 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order names the same respondent. A judge at a bail argument in June can see a designation entered in January. A client who does not know that the designation exists cannot explain it to the judge.

The collateral consequences also depend on the same records. A college or university student faces a school discipline process that begins with the arrest and continues whether or not the criminal case proceeds. The discipline file itself is an education record protected by FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. However, records created by a campus police department for law enforcement purposes are excluded from FERPA protection under 34 C.F.R. § 99.8. As a result, the confidentiality that covers the transcript does not apply to the campus incident report.

A licensed professional may have to report the charge itself to a licensing board. What the board sees depends on the iCORI access level that the board holds. For a non-citizen, federal immigration law can impose severe consequences on a domestic violence disposition. Two dispositions that look identical on the docket can have different immigration consequences. An immigration judge can order removal based on one disposition where the other would not support removal.

The firm’s page on domestic violence charges and immigration states the result for each disposition. A defendant who receives a disposition under § 13M, including a continuance without a finding, is ordinarily required to complete the intimate partner abuse education program. The program keeps its own attendance and completion records. A DCF 51A investigation can also be opened after a domestic violence arrest when children are in the home. The records of the investigation are kept in yet another system.

Defending the Case with the Records in Mind

Attorney Serpa treats the record systems as part of the case from the first appearance. At arraignment, Attorney Serpa contests the 56A designation where the police report does not supply an adequate factual basis for an allegation of abuse under the c. 209A, § 1 definition. In Dossantos, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the judge must be satisfied that an adequate factual basis exists. With a two-minute argument at the bail hearing, defense counsel can keep a permanent entry out of the DVRS.

With the record systems in mind, Attorney Serpa seeks three outcomes. The first is a clerk magistrate victory where the case comes by summons, so that CORI is never created. The second is an acquittal or a finding of no probable cause rather than a bare dismissal where the DVRS designation would harm the client. The third is prompt sealing when the case ends.

Attorney Serpa also reads every record the systems hold before the Commonwealth uses them, including the 911 audio, the body camera video, the booking records, and the prior DVRS history that the Commonwealth intends to cite. The substantive defenses are covered on the firm’s pages on assault and battery in domestic violence cases, strangulation and suffocation, and the domestic violence defense page.

Who Attorney Serpa Represents

Serpa Law Office represents people charged with domestic violence offenses across Greater Boston, including professionals, students, parents in the middle of custody cases, first-time defendants, and clients whose accusers have recanted. Attorney Serpa has tried domestic violence cases since 1995. He handles the record consequences, the 56A designation, the CORI entry, and the sealing petition, as part of the defense rather than as an afterthought. Call 617.936.0201 for a free, confidential consultation.

Massachusetts Courts Where Attorney Serpa Tries Domestic Violence Cases

Attorney Serpa defends domestic violence cases in the district courts of Greater Boston, including Boston Municipal Court and its divisions, Quincy, Dedham, Cambridge, Somerville, Malden, Waltham, Woburn, Framingham, Salem, Lynn, and Brockton. He also defends domestic violence cases in the superior courts of Suffolk, Norfolk, Middlesex, Essex, and Plymouth counties.

A person who has been falsely accused should read the firm’s page on defending a false accusation of domestic violence in Massachusetts, which explains how counsel proves bias and motive.

Related Serpa Law Office resources

The domestic violence records FAQs answer the questions on this page in plain terms. For civil order records, a person should start with the firm’s page on removing a protective order from the statewide registry. For clearing the criminal record itself, the pages on Massachusetts criminal records and sealing and expungement cover the mechanics and the waiting periods.