Massachusetts Domestic Violence Records FAQs: Arrest Reports, CORI, and the DVRS

No. G.L. c. 41, § 98F makes the daily police log a public record, but it requires departments to keep separate, non-public entries for domestic violence responses, for arrests for assault or assault and battery on a family or household member, and for violations of protective orders. Those entries shall not be a public record and shall not be disclosed to the public. The arrest becomes publicly visible through the court docket after arraignment, not through the police log.

Under G.L. c. 41, § 97D, reports of abuse between family or household members are confidential. Access is limited to the people who need them: the victim and the victim’s attorney, prosecutors, victim-witness advocates, domestic violence and sexual assault counselors, law enforcement, and bail officials. Unlawful disclosure is punishable by up to 1 year in jail or a $1,000 fine. The defense obtains the report in discovery once the criminal case begins, as explained on the firm’s domestic violence procedure page.

At arraignment. When the clerk dockets the charge and the probation department enters it into the court activity record system, the case becomes criminal offender record information under G.L. c. 6, § 167. Because G.L. c. 276, § 57 holds a person arrested for an act constituting abuse for 6 hours before bail, except by a judge in open court, an arrested defendant ordinarily goes straight to arraignment. A charge that arrives by summons can instead go to a clerk magistrate hearing, and a case resolved there never creates a CORI entry.

Yes, until it is sealed. The entry shows the charge and the dismissal. Discretionary sealing under G.L. c. 276, § 100C is available for dismissed cases without a waiting period on a showing of good cause under Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296 (2014), and time-based sealing under § 100A is available after 3 years for misdemeanors and 7 years for felonies. The firm’s sealing and expungement page explains both routes.

The DVRS is a confidential registry created by St. 1992, c. 188, § 7 and maintained by the Commissioner of Probation. It holds records of the issuance and violation of protective orders, including 209A abuse prevention orders, court activity records, and, since 2014, the preliminary written statements of abuse entered in criminal cases under G.L. c. 276, § 56A. It is available only to judges considering protective order petitions and related matters and to law enforcement agencies. It is not public.

Under G.L. c. 276, § 56A, before a judge releases or sets bail for a person arrested and charged with a crime against a person or property, the judge asks the Commonwealth whether abuse, as defined in G.L. c. 209A, § 1, is alleged to have occurred immediately prior to or in conjunction with the crime. If so, the Commonwealth files a preliminary written statement, the judge makes a written ruling that abuse is alleged, and the statement is entered into the DVRS. The statute states that it does not modify or limit the presumption of innocence.

In Commonwealth v. Dossantos, 472 Mass. 74 (2015), the Supreme Judicial Court held that the judge must inquire into and be satisfied that there is an adequate factual basis for the Commonwealth’s allegation of abuse before making the written ruling. The judge does not need to take evidence or hold a separate hearing, but the record must show a real determination rather than automatic acceptance of the prosecutor’s allegation.

Yes. Because Dossantos requires an adequate factual basis, defense counsel can contest the designation at the first appearance using the same police report the Commonwealth relies on: no injury described, no fear of imminent serious physical harm alleged, or no qualifying relationship between the parties under G.L. c. 209A, § 1. A designation never entered never needs to be removed, which matters because the removal rules are narrow.

No. Section 56A requires removal only after a finding of not guilty, a no bill from the grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause. The statute then states that a dismissal shall not be eligible for removal from the statewide domestic violence record keeping system. A dismissal, including the dismissal that follows a completed continuance without a finding, leaves the designation in place. The difference between an acquittal and a dismissal is permanent in the DVRS, and it belongs in every decision about how to resolve the case.

No. Sealing under G.L. c. 276, §§ 100A and 100C operates on the court and probation records that make up CORI. The 56A statement is not CORI by the statute’s own terms, and its removal is governed only by the rule described above. A 209A order in the registry likewise remains visible to judges even after it is vacated, under Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153 (1997); the narrow fraud on the court route is covered on the firm’s page on expunging an order from the registry.

Almost never through the time-based route. G.L. c. 276, § 100J excludes from expungement any violation of a 209A or 258E order, assault and battery on a family or household member under c. 265, § 13M, all c. 265 felonies, and offenses causing or intended to cause serious bodily injury, among others. For most domestic violence charges the realistic remedy is sealing, and the standards are collected on the firm’s sealing and expungement standards page.

A standard iCORI employment check returns no record for a sealed case, and G.L. c. 276, § 100A allows an applicant to answer no record to questions about sealed cases. Access levels differ: certain employers, licensing bodies, and government agencies see more than standard access provides. The firm’s Massachusetts criminal records page and the CORI sealing FAQs explain the levels and what each one returns.

Judges and law enforcement. G.L. c. 209A, § 7 requires a search of the DVRS when a new abuse prevention order petition is filed, so the judge deciding a future 209A case sees the designation and any order history. Judges also consult the system at bail and at dangerousness hearings under G.L. c. 276, § 58A, and those hearings themselves become part of CORI when the defendant is detained or released on conditions. Employers, landlords, and the public see none of it.

The criminal case builds the history a judge reviews when someone later seeks a 209A order: the 56A designation, any prior orders, and any violation charges all appear in the DVRS search. An acquittal removes the 56A designation from that history; a dismissal leaves it. The firm defends the criminal case with that future audience in mind, as explained on the domestic violence defense page.

That each faces a second process running alongside the criminal case. A college or university student faces school discipline that begins with the arrest; the discipline file is a FERPA-protected education record under 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, but campus police records created for law enforcement purposes are excluded from that protection under 34 C.F.R. § 99.8. A licensed professional may have board reporting duties triggered by the charge, with the board’s view of the record set by its iCORI access level. A non-citizen faces immigration consequences that turn on the precise disposition, and an admission supporting a continuance without a finding can itself carry consequences. Each of these belongs in the defense plan from the first day.

Yes. Booking fingerprints are reported into the FBI’s national identification records, and an active 209A order is entered into the national protection order file that police in every state query; 18 U.S.C. § 2265 requires other states to enforce a Massachusetts order without registration. Customs officers query the same federal systems at the border, so a record invisible to employers can still produce questions at reentry, and for a non-citizen they become admissibility questions. A Massachusetts seal does not automatically update the FBI record; corrections run through the contributing agency under 28 C.F.R. § 16.34, so the federal record should be checked after sealing.

Yes, under both federal and state law. A conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence carries a federal possession prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), and a Massachusetts conviction under c. 265, § 13M ordinarily qualifies. A 209A order extended after notice and a hearing commonly triggers the separate prohibition of § 922(g)(8), which the Supreme Court upheld in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). Both are enforced through the national instant check system, and Massachusetts license to carry consequences begin with the charge itself. The firearms picture belongs in every plea discussion, as covered on the domestic violence defense page.