Understanding Massachusetts Record Sealing and Expungement: G.L. c. 276 Explained

Two Distinct Pathways: Understanding the Sealing-Expungement Distinction in Massachusetts

Massachusetts is one of the few states that clearly distinguishes between two separate forms of criminal record relief — sealing and expungement — each governed by different statutory provisions, carrying different legal effects, and available under different eligibility standards. Many people use the terms interchangeably, but in Massachusetts they represent fundamentally different outcomes, and conflating them leads to misplaced expectations.

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276, §§ 100A through 100B govern sealing — a process in which a record is removed from public criminal history databases but remains in existence and remains accessible to certain governmental entities. Sections 100E through 100U, enacted as part of the 2018 criminal justice reform legislation, govern true expungement — a process in which the record is physically destroyed and permanently eliminated. Knowing which pathway applies to a given situation, and what the practical effects of each are, is the starting point for any record relief strategy in the Commonwealth.

Record Sealing Under G.L. c. 276, § 100A: Automatic Sealing

Massachusetts provides for automatic sealing of certain conviction records without any action required from the person whose record is affected. Under § 100A, the Commissioner of Probation is responsible for automatically sealing records that meet the statutory criteria after the applicable waiting period has elapsed.

The waiting period for misdemeanor convictions under § 100A is three years, measured from the date of conviction or from the date of release from incarceration (including any period of parole or supervised release), whichever is later. For felony convictions, the waiting period is seven years from the same reference point.

Crucially, automatic sealing under § 100A is triggered only if the person has no new criminal charges or convictions during the waiting period. Any new criminal activity — whether a new conviction or, in some interpretations, even a new arrest that results in dismissal — can interrupt the waiting period and prevent automatic sealing from occurring on schedule. The Commissioner of Probation monitors records through the state's criminal history system and applies the automatic sealing when the criteria are satisfied.

Not all offenses are eligible for automatic sealing under § 100A. The statute contains a list of excluded offense categories, including sex offenses, certain violent crimes, and offenses that carry a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years or more. This means that persons with convictions for these excluded categories cannot benefit from § 100A and must either pursue the petition pathway under § 100B or — if they meet the very limited criteria — the expungement pathway under §§ 100E–100U.

Petition for Sealing Under G.L. c. 276, § 100B

For convictions not covered by the automatic sealing provisions of § 100A, or for persons who wish to seek sealing before the automatic waiting period expires in circumstances where that is permitted, § 100B provides a petition-based pathway. The § 100B petition is directed to the Commissioner of Probation, not to a court — an important distinction from the filing process in most other states.

Upon submission of a § 100B petition, the Commissioner forwards notice to the district attorney's office for the county where the conviction occurred. The district attorney has thirty days to file an objection. If no objection is filed within that period, the Commissioner proceeds to seal the record. If the district attorney objects, the matter is referred to the district court for the county where the conviction occurred, and a hearing is scheduled.

At the hearing, the petitioner has the opportunity to present evidence and argument in favor of sealing, and the district attorney presents the basis for the objection. The judge weighs the competing interests — the petitioner's interest in moving forward without the burden of a criminal record versus the public's interest in knowing about the conviction — and issues a ruling. Courts have discretion under § 100B to grant or deny the petition regardless of whether the technical eligibility criteria are met, and in practice the strength of the petitioner's rehabilitation narrative and any opposition from the district attorney significantly influences outcomes.

The § 100B pathway is also available for arrests and charges that did not result in conviction, including dismissed charges and charges resulting in acquittal. For these non-conviction records, the district attorney's objection threshold is generally lower, and courts are more inclined to grant the petition absent specific public interest concerns.

True Expungement Under G.L. c. 276, §§ 100E–100U

The true expungement provisions enacted in 2018 represent a significant policy development, but they must be understood for what they are: a narrow remedy available only in specific, limited circumstances. This is not a broadly accessible pathway to clear most criminal records in Massachusetts. Rather, it addresses particular categories of cases where maintaining any record at all is considered unjust.

The first category eligible for expungement under §§ 100E–100U is convictions for conduct that was committed when the person was under the age of 21 and that involves an offense that has since been decriminalized or eliminated from the criminal code. The clearest example is the wave of marijuana possession convictions that became eligible for expungement following Massachusetts' marijuana legalization. Persons convicted of marijuana possession in amounts now lawful under state law may petition for expungement under this provision.

The second category is convictions based on demonstrable error — specifically, misidentification (where the wrong person was convicted) or fraud upon the court (where the conviction was obtained through fraud, false evidence, or other court-tainting misconduct). This is an extremely high bar, as it requires affirmative proof of an underlying error or fraud rather than simply demonstrating that the petitioner is deserving of a fresh start.

When expungement is granted under §§ 100E–100U, the destruction of records is comprehensive. The Office of the Commissioner of Probation, the court that handled the original case, the arresting law enforcement agency, the Registry of Motor Vehicles (if applicable), and every other state or local agency holding records related to the conviction are directed to destroy those records. After expungement, the record does not merely become inaccessible — it ceases to exist. This is materially different from sealing, and it means that the person may truthfully represent to virtually any inquirer that no such record exists.

Marijuana Records and Massachusetts Expungement

Massachusetts was an early-adopting state on marijuana legalization, and the legal consequences for persons with prior marijuana convictions have been addressed through multiple legislative and administrative actions. Following the 2018 criminal justice reform and the implementation of the recreational marijuana framework, persons with convictions for marijuana possession in quantities that are now lawful under state law have had a clear expungement pathway available.

The process for marijuana-related expungement under the § 100E framework requires the petitioner to identify the specific conviction, demonstrate that the underlying conduct is no longer criminal under current Massachusetts law, and submit the petition to the appropriate court. Courts have processed these petitions with relative efficiency given the volume of eligible cases and the clear legislative intent to provide relief.

It is important to note that marijuana offenses involving distribution, trafficking, or possession with intent to distribute are not automatically eligible for expungement simply because personal possession has been legalized. The eligibility analysis is conduct-specific: only the conduct that is now lawful is eligible for expungement, not all marijuana-related convictions across the board.

The Practical Effects of Sealing in Massachusetts

After a record is sealed in Massachusetts — whether through the automatic process under § 100A or the petition process under § 100B — it is removed from the publicly accessible portion of the criminal history system maintained by the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS). For most background checks conducted for private employment, housing, and credit purposes, the sealed record will not appear, and the person may truthfully state on most applications that they have no criminal record.

However, there are important exceptions to who can access sealed records in Massachusetts. Courts retain access to sealed records for purposes of criminal proceedings. Law enforcement agencies can access sealed records in connection with their law enforcement functions. The Parole Board, the Sex Offender Registry Board, the Department of Youth Services, and prosecuting attorneys can access sealed records in the context of their official duties. Certain licensing agencies — particularly those involved in healthcare, childcare, law enforcement, financial services, and legal practice — have statutory access to sealed records and can consider sealed convictions in licensing decisions.

This means that a sealed record in Massachusetts does not provide the same degree of protection in every context. A person seeking a healthcare license, a real estate broker's license, or a position with a law enforcement agency should understand that the sealed conviction may be reviewed by the relevant licensing authority and could affect licensure determinations.

Employment, Housing, and Disclosure After Sealing

Massachusetts General Laws and the guidance published by the state's civil rights enforcement agencies provide that most private employers cannot inquire about or consider sealed criminal records in employment decisions. The Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act and related statutes create meaningful protections for persons with sealed records in the private employment context.

For housing, Massachusetts landlords conducting background checks through standard commercial services will generally not see sealed records, and state law protects tenants with sealed records in most rental application contexts. For federally subsidized housing, federal law governs and sealed state records may still be considered.

One of the most important practical protections after sealing in Massachusetts is the right to answer "no" on most employment and housing applications when asked about prior criminal records. This protection exists by statute and is not simply a matter of social convention — misrepresenting a criminal record that has been sealed is not the same as misrepresenting a criminal record that still exists. A sealed record is treated by Massachusetts law as not existing for purposes of most private-sector inquiries.

Waiting Period Calculations and Common Mistakes

One of the most common mistakes in calculating eligibility for automatic sealing under § 100A involves the reference point for the waiting period. The statute uses the later of the conviction date or the release from incarceration date — not the date the probationary period ended, not the date all fines were paid, and not the date the sentence was formally discharged. Persons who served a period of incarceration followed by supervised release must count the waiting period from the end of that supervised release, not from the end of incarceration alone.

Similarly, any new criminal activity during the waiting period does not merely pause the clock — it restarts the waiting period from the date of the new activity. A person who is convicted of a new offense five years into a seven-year felony waiting period does not simply need to serve two more years; the waiting period begins again from the date of the new conviction. This is a strict standard that rewards consistent law-abiding conduct over the full waiting period.

For the expungement pathways under §§ 100E–100U, there is no fixed waiting period — the eligibility is based on the nature of the underlying offense (decriminalized conduct or error-based) rather than the passage of time. However, as a practical matter, gathering the documentation necessary to support a § 100E petition takes time, and courts treat these petitions as requiring meaningful substantiation.

For complete details on eligibility, the Commissioner of Probation petition process, and what documentation is needed, visit the Massachusetts expungement guide.

Seeking Assistance and Next Steps

Massachusetts has a network of legal aid organizations, reentry support services, and criminal justice reform advocacy groups that assist petitioners navigating the sealing and expungement process. The DCJIS provides a CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) request process that allows individuals to obtain a copy of their own criminal record, which is an essential first step in assessing what records exist and what pathways apply.

A complete, accurate understanding of one's own record — including every conviction, every charge, every disposition — is foundational to any record relief strategy. Many petitions are delayed or denied because petitioners were not aware of a prior conviction or prior charge that affected their eligibility. Obtaining a full CORI report before engaging with the process avoids those surprises and allows for realistic planning.