FAQ: Sealing and Expunging a Massachusetts Criminal Record (CORI)

A Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) report is the official Massachusetts criminal record that the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) and the Office of the Commissioner of Probation maintain. The system creates the entry the moment a court dockets a criminal charge at arraignment, and the entry stays even if the court later dismisses the charge or a jury returns a not guilty verdict. A CORI lists the charges, the court, the disposition, and the date of each case.
Under M.G.L. c. 6, § 172, most Massachusetts employers, landlords, educational institutions, and licensing boards may request a CORI check. Access is tiered. Criminal justice agencies see the most, while most private employers see only convictions and pending charges. What any given requestor can view depends on its category of authorization.

A dismissal or nolle prosequi may remain visible until the record is sealed. Under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100C, the defendant may petition the court to seal that non-conviction disposition, and the court must determine whether substantial justice would best be served by sealing. A not guilty finding, a no bill returned by a grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause is sealed by the Commissioner of Probation without a petition unless the defendant objects. Section 100A waiting periods govern convictions, not these non-conviction dispositions.
For an explanation of the underlying dispositions, see how criminal cases get dismissed in Massachusetts.

A continuance without a finding (CWOF) is not a conviction under Massachusetts law because the court does not enter a guilty finding. The case appears as pending during the continuance period. If the defendant completes the required conditions, the court dismisses the charge, and the resulting non-conviction disposition may be eligible for judicial sealing under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100C.
Other systems use their own definitions. Federal immigration law may treat a CWOF as a conviction, and a professional disclosure obligation depends on the governing board’s rule and the wording of the question. Sealing does not change those separate rules. The firm’s CWOF, Pretrial Probation, and Diversion FAQs address these distinctions.

An arrest or accusation that never results in a criminal complaint and arraignment does not create a Massachusetts CORI entry from that matter. If a clerk-magistrate denies an application for a complaint, that application produces no complaint, arraignment, or CORI entry. Police incident reports, arrest information, and records maintained outside the Massachusetts CORI system are separate and may require individual review.

Yes. A person may request a personal CORI report from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services through iCORI. Reviewing the report before applying for employment, housing, education, or a professional license can identify the cases and dispositions that DCJIS reports to that person. Other requesters receive information according to their statutory access level, so a personal report should not be assumed to duplicate every employer, licensing, criminal justice, or federal background check.

Sealing under M.G.L. c. 276, §§ 100A and 100C restricts access to an eligible Massachusetts record but does not destroy it. The record is hidden from most employers, landlords, and members of the public, and Massachusetts law generally permits a person to answer “no record” to the employment, housing, education, and licensing inquiries governed by the sealing statutes. Authorized law enforcement agencies, courts, and certain appointing authorities may retain access.
Expungement under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100E is the permanent erasure or destruction of a covered record from Massachusetts state and local systems. It is available only under the narrower expungement statutes. The definition excludes the statewide domestic violence record keeping system, and a Massachusetts order does not necessarily remove a federal or privately preserved record. For many eligible records, sealing, not expungement, is the available remedy. The firm’s page on sealing and expunging a Massachusetts criminal record explains each procedure in full.

Under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100A, a misdemeanor conviction generally becomes eligible for time-based sealing three years after the conviction or release from incarceration, whichever is later. A felony conviction generally requires seven years. A later conviction or period of incarceration can affect the calculation.
A completed CWOF ends in a dismissal rather than a conviction. That non-conviction disposition may be eligible for judicial sealing under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100C without the three-year or seven-year conviction waiting period. A CWOF that is still within the continuance period remains pending.

A Massachusetts court cannot use M.G.L. c. 276, § 100C to seal a conviction before the waiting period in § 100A expires. A misdemeanor or felony conviction becomes eligible through the time-based procedure only after the applicable waiting period has run.
Section 100C addresses cases that ended without a conviction. A not guilty finding, no bill, or finding of no probable cause is sealed without a petition unless the defendant objects. A dismissal or nolle prosequi may be sealed on a judicial petition when the court determines that substantial justice would best be served.

M.G.L. c. 276, § 100A does not apply to convictions under M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 121 through 131H, which cover specified firearms laws, or to convictions under chapters 268 and 268A, which cover crimes against public justice and public-employee ethics offenses. Resisting arrest is an express exception and may be sealed after the applicable waiting period.
Separate rules apply to sex offenses. A sex offense cannot be sealed while a registration duty continues, and a person who has ever been classified as a Level 2 or Level 3 sex offender cannot seal the sex offense under § 100A. The current statute does not categorically exclude murder by name. Section 100A otherwise reaches a broad range of convictions after the applicable waiting period, including eligible domestic violence, OUI, and drug convictions, when every statutory requirement is met. Non-conviction dispositions are analyzed separately under § 100C.

Massachusetts uses different procedures for convictions and non-conviction dispositions. An eligible conviction is sealed through a time-based request to the Commissioner of Probation under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100A after the applicable three-year or seven-year period. Section 100C governs cases that ended without a conviction.
A not guilty finding, a no bill, or a finding of no probable cause is sealed without a petition unless the defendant objects. A person seeking to seal a dismissal or nolle prosequi files a petition in the court that handled the case and presents evidence relevant to whether substantial justice would best be served by sealing. Reviewing the current CORI and court docket first helps identify the correct disposition and procedure. Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a CORI and sealing assessment.

Massachusetts law generally permits a person to answer that no record exists when a sealed record is the subject of an employment, education, housing, or other inquiry covered by the sealing statute. The exact question and the law governing the requester still matter.
Sealing does not erase the court record or automatically change a separate federal record. Criminal justice agencies and other authorized entities may retain access as Massachusetts law provides. Professional licensing, federal employment, immigration, and security-clearance questions may impose separate disclosure rules. Those questions should be reviewed under the rule that governs the particular application.

A Massachusetts seal does not automatically change information maintained in a separate federal database. What an FBI-based background check displays depends on the records transmitted to the federal system and whether later disposition information was added. Federal employment, immigration, and security-clearance reviews may also ask questions that are broader than a Massachusetts CORI inquiry.
If a federal record is incomplete or continues to report an outdated Massachusetts disposition, a record-correction process may be necessary. Professional licensing is a separate subject. The governing board’s access and disclosure rules must be reviewed individually, as explained on the firm’s page about criminal charges and professional licenses.

The underlying offense controls. Sealing a Massachusetts record does not automatically restore firearms rights. Under Massachusetts firearms law (M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 121 through 131P), the licensing authority can deny or revoke a License to Carry (LTC) or Firearms Identification Card (FID) based on a statutory disqualifier, including a conviction for certain misdemeanors and for all felonies. A sealed conviction may still appear to the licensing authority in a firearms licensing check, because gun licensing authorities keep access to sealed records under Massachusetts law. Expungement, which permanently destroys the record, does more to restore firearms eligibility, but only if the underlying offense qualifies for expungement.

The time-based expungement route in M.G.L. c. 276, §§ 100F through 100J is narrow. Every petitioned offense must have occurred before the person’s twenty-first birthday. The petition may include no more than two records of the applicable type, with multiple charges from one incident treated as one record. At least three years must have passed for misdemeanor-only records and seven years if any petitioned record includes a felony, including the connected periods of custody and probation.
Other than qualifying motor vehicle matters for which the punishment was no more than a $50 fine, the person may have no other criminal or juvenile court appearances or dispositions in Massachusetts, another state, a United States possession, or federal court. The person must certify that no criminal justice agency is known to be conducting an active criminal investigation, and the offense must fall outside every exclusion in § 100J.
Section 100K creates a separate route for records caused by false identity, conduct that is no longer criminal, specified law-enforcement, witness, or court errors, or fraud upon the court. The age, waiting-period, record-count, and § 100J exclusions do not govern that route. The petitioner must prove a qualifying ground by clear and convincing evidence and show that expungement is in the best interests of justice. Section 100K 1/4 separately requires expungement of specified marijuana records. The firm’s complete sealing and expungement guide explains these distinctions.

Massachusetts uses two expungement procedures. For time-based expungement under M.G.L. c. 276, §§ 100F through 100J, the petitioner first submits the petition to the Commissioner of Probation. If the Commissioner finds the record eligible, the district attorney receives notice and may object. The court then decides whether expungement serves the best interests of justice and must enter written findings.
For reason-based expungement under § 100K, the petitioner files in the court that created the record and must prove a qualifying statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence. Under Commonwealth v. K.W., 490 Mass. 619 (2022), a petitioner who proves that ground receives a strong presumption in favor of expungement. A judge who denies the petition because of a significant countervailing concern must identify that concern in written findings. The judge may not weigh the petitioner’s other criminal records against the petition. The K.W. presumption applies only to § 100K; it does not apply to time-based expungement.
An order under either procedure directs the covered Massachusetts state and local agencies to erase the covered records. The Massachusetts sealing and expungement standards page explains the eligibility requirements and judicial standards in detail.

M.G.L. c. 276, §§ 100E and 100L require the permanent erasure or destruction of the covered record from the Massachusetts state and local systems bound by the order, including covered publicly available police logs. For the employment, housing, education, and licensing inquiries governed by § 100N, the person and the responding agencies may answer that no record exists.
The order does not erase everything that may relate to the event. The statutory definition excludes information in the statewide domestic violence record keeping system. A state order also does not necessarily remove a corresponding FBI record, a federal court record, news coverage, or information lawfully retained by a private source. Massachusetts must notify federal authorities and request the corresponding update, but a Massachusetts judge cannot command a federal court or agency. The firm’s page on Massachusetts sealing orders and federal criminal records explains the separate federal correction process.

A dismissed case may qualify for time-based expungement if every requirement in M.G.L. c. 276, §§ 100F through 100J is satisfied. The offense-before-age-twenty-one rule, the limits on all other criminal and juvenile court appearances, the three-year or seven-year period, and the § 100J offense exclusions still apply. A dismissed record may also qualify under § 100K if it was created because of one of that section’s separate grounds.
Sealing is often the available remedy for a dismissal. A person may petition the court under § 100C without waiting three or seven years, but the court must determine that substantial justice would best be served by sealing. The dismissal is not sealed automatically merely because the charge ended. The firm’s sealing and expungement guide explains how the disposition determines the correct procedure.

The governing licensing board and the wording of its application control the answer. Sealing changes the availability of a Massachusetts CORI record to many requesters, but it does not by itself determine whether an applicant must disclose the underlying charge, admission, disposition, discipline, or conduct. Boards use different reporting triggers and different levels of CORI access.
Expungement erases the covered Massachusetts state and local records of the case. Records that federal agencies, civil registries, or private background-screening companies already hold may remain in their own databases. A licensed professional should review the current rule and the precise application question before deciding what to disclose. The firm’s criminal defense page for licensed professionals addresses that analysis.
For ordinary private employment, the rule is clearer. Under M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4(9)(iv), an employer may not request information about a criminal record sealed or expunged under chapter 276, keep a record of that information, use an application form that asks for it, or hold the applicant’s silence against the applicant. The same subsection provides that no person may be held guilty of perjury or of giving a false statement for declining to acknowledge information the subsection gives that person the right to withhold. Several licensing boards retain statutory access to sealed records and apply their own disclosure rules.

Unpaid court fines and restitution do not automatically bar sealing. The Massachusetts sealing statute does not list outstanding financial obligations as a disqualifier. A judge conducting a judicial sealing hearing, though, holds discretion to weigh unpaid obligations in deciding whether to grant the petition. For time-based sealing by mail, the Probation Service reviews the CORI and the case dispositions, and outstanding fines on an otherwise eligible case should not block the seal. We still advise resolving outstanding financial obligations before filing a sealing petition whenever possible.

A student’s eligibility depends on the disposition. A misdemeanor or felony conviction follows the three-year or seven-year time-based procedure under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100A. A completed CWOF ends in a dismissal, and that non-conviction disposition may be eligible for judicial sealing under § 100C without the conviction waiting period. A pending CWOF cannot be treated as a completed dismissal.
After sealing, the wording and governing law of each graduate-school, licensing, federal, or out-of-state application still matter. The firm’s page on criminal defense for college and university students explains why the disposition and later disclosure questions should be considered together.

Yes, if the conviction satisfies M.G.L. c. 276, § 100A. Drug offenses under M.G.L. c. 94C, including possession (§ 34), distribution (§§ 32, 32A, and 32B), and trafficking (§ 32E), are not categorically excluded from conviction sealing. An eligible misdemeanor follows the three-year period and an eligible felony follows the seven-year period.
A sealed Massachusetts CORI does not erase a separate FBI record or undo a consequence imposed under federal law. A drug disposition may still affect professional licensing, federal housing, or immigration status. Noncitizens and visa holders should obtain advice about the particular offense and application because federal immigration law does not treat state sealing as eliminating the underlying disposition. See the firm’s pages on Massachusetts drug-charge defense and immigration consequences of Massachusetts criminal charges.

No. Massachusetts does not seal an OUI conviction without a request. An eligible misdemeanor OUI conviction follows the three-year time-based procedure under M.G.L. c. 276, § 100A, while an eligible felony conviction follows the seven-year period. The calculation runs from the conviction or release from incarceration, whichever is later.
Sealing the criminal CORI does not itself alter a separate Registry of Motor Vehicles driving record. The Registry’s records and access rules must be analyzed separately from the criminal sealing statute. See the firm’s page on Massachusetts OUI defense.

Sealing a Massachusetts record does not change the federal immigration classification of the underlying disposition. Immigration consequences depend on the offense, the record of conviction, any admission, the sentence, and the federal rule that applies. A CWOF is not a Massachusetts conviction but may be treated as a conviction under federal immigration law.
A noncitizen should not assume that sealing removes an immigration consequence or eliminates a disclosure obligation. Immigration counsel can review the particular disposition and application. See the firm’s page on immigration consequences of Massachusetts criminal charges.

A clerk-magistrate hearing is a private proceeding held before a criminal complaint and arraignment in cases eligible for the procedure under M.G.L. c. 218, § 35A. If the clerk-magistrate denies the application, that application produces no complaint, arraignment, or CORI entry. The denial is the practical end of nearly every ordinary matter, although it is not technically a final judgment and a later application is possible in rare circumstances.
Police incident reports, arrest information, and separate school, professional, licensing, federal, or immigration questions may still require review. Early representation remains important because preventing a complaint avoids the public criminal case that would otherwise require a later sealing remedy. The firm’s guide to the first 24 hours after a Massachusetts arrest or criminal accusation explains the immediate steps.
A complaint may be dismissed without prejudice. Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 313-314 (2002). A clerk-magistrate’s denial is also not technically final. Cabrera v. Commonwealth, 496 Mass. 179 (2025), held that collateral estoppel did not bar a later application because the denial was not a final judgment. Most denied applications are never brought again. See the firm’s page on how Massachusetts criminal cases are dismissed.