Massachusetts
Massachusetts has a Forensic Science Oversight Board inside the executive branch that must make sure forensic labs are accredited, and a statewide law limiting police facial recognition searches. It has no analyst license. Since 2023 the State has required cartridge casings from traced crime guns to go into the national ballistics network, required sexual assault kits to be kept for 15 years, and lifted the time limit for rape charges when DNA identifies the suspect late.
At a glance
- Oversight body
- The Forensic Science Oversight Board, a standing board within the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (G.L. c. 6, sec. 184A). The governor appoints 13 members, and the undersecretary for forensic sciences chairs it without a vote. It has oversight authority over commonwealth facilities that do forensic work in criminal investigations and does independent audits of state and municipal labs (184A(a)). It must investigate a forensic technique in common use when an application alleges it is not scientifically valid and at least 5 members agree, or when at least 5 members decide that an investigation would advance the integrity and reliability of forensic science (184A(d)). It runs a mandatory system for labs to report negligence or misconduct (184A(e)), reviews forensic budget requests (184A(h)), sets chain-of-custody protocols (184A(i)), and receives quarterly reports (184A(j)). Investigation reports go to the executive office, the Supreme Judicial Court, the Legislature’s public safety committee, prosecutors, the attorney general, the defense bar, and the New England Innocence Project.
- Lab accreditation
- Required through the board. The board must ensure that every covered facility is actively accredited and meets International Organization for Standardization standards (184A(g)). This reaches commonwealth facilities that do forensic work in criminal investigations, including state and municipal labs. No penalty or evidence-exclusion rule was found; enforcement runs through the board’s oversight, audits, and reports. Each budget from fiscal 2024 through fiscal 2027 requires the State Police to report each lab’s accreditation status to the Ways and Means committees every quarter (item 8100-1004 of St. 2026, c. 137).
- Analyst licensing
- None. The board evaluates professional licensing processes (184A(g)) and receives employee qualification records (184A(j)), but no statute licenses or certifies forensic analysts.
- Admissibility standard
- Common law. A judge may find reliability under the Daubert-Lanigan test, and general acceptance “on its own, continues to be sufficient” (Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 (2005); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994)). The rule text in the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence follows the pre-2023 Federal Rule 702, including that the expert “has reliably applied” the method, and has no express “more likely than not” burden (Mass. G. Evid. sec. 702, 2026 edition). The note, citing Patterson, says the proponent must still show that the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the method to the facts of the case. Massachusetts has not adopted the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702. Under Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827 (2011), cited in the note, firearms examiners may not imply statistical certainty. A supplement to the 2026 edition was not checked.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- No changed-science statute. A motion for forensic or scientific analysis under G.L. c. 278A is open to a person convicted in a Massachusetts court who is in custody, on parole or probation, or whose liberty is otherwise restrained by the conviction, and who asserts factual innocence (c. 278A, sec. 2). It is filed in the court of conviction with an affidavit (sec. 3). An order allowing or denying it is final and appealable, with notice of appeal due within 30 days (sec. 18). The other route is a motion for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b).
- DNA database scope
- Conviction-based. DNA is taken from anyone convicted of an offense punishable by state prison and from youthful offenders adjudicated for such an offense (G.L. c. 22E, sec. 3). There is no arrestee collection. Willful refusal after notice is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000, up to 6 months, or both (sec. 11). These rules date from St. 2018, c. 69.
- Facial recognition
- Statewide limits since St. 2020, c. 253 (G.L. c. 6, sec. 220). Police may run a facial recognition search only by written request to the Registry of Motor Vehicles, the State Police, or the FBI. They need a court order based on specific and articulable facts, except to identify a deceased person or in a narrowly tailored, documented emergency. Agencies report each search quarterly, and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security publishes the data each year. The limits do not apply to State Police investigative work tied to issuing Registry identity documents, device unlocking, or redaction software.
Changes, 2023 to 2026
No time limit for rape charges when DNA identifies the suspect late
A new paragraph in G.L. c. 277, sec. 63 says an indictment or complaint for an offense under sections 22 to 23B of chapter 265 “may be found and filed at any time” if the person was identified after the limitation period and the identity “has been established through a DNA analysis, as defined in section 1 of chapter 22E, using evidence collected at the time of the commission of the offense.” Every other offense in that range, sections 22A to 23B, already had no time limit. The change matters most for rape under section 22, which otherwise has a 15-year limit.
For practitioners: In a late rape charge, check that the identification came from a DNA analysis of evidence collected at the time of the offense.
Sexual assault kits kept for at least 15 years
The act rewrote G.L. c. 41, sec. 97B½. Two things are new: all sexual assault evidence kits “shall be retained for at least 15 years,” and labs must test kits within 30 days “notwithstanding the statute of limitations on the underlying offense.” The 30-day testing duty, entry of DNA profiles into CODIS and the state database, and entry into the kit tracking system were already law under St. 2018, c. 69.
For practitioners: A kit should still exist for at least 15 years, and an expired limitation period is no reason to skip testing.
One-year budget floor for genetic genealogy at the State Police lab
The fiscal 2026 crime lab item required that “not less than $250,000 shall be expended for costs associated with forensic genetic genealogy DNA” to help solve violent crimes, identify unidentified remains, process sexual assault kits, and support cold cases. Any third-party testing lab had to be vetted and approved by the State Police crime lab. The fiscal 2027 item (St. 2026, c. 137) drops both the genetic genealogy language and the vetting rule, so neither applies now. The session law marks no governor reduction or veto for this item.
For practitioners: No Massachusetts statute governs genetic genealogy; the vetting rule applied only in fiscal 2026.
Casings from traced crime guns go into the national ballistics network
The act rewrote G.L. c. 140, sec. 131Q. New subsection (c) says “A cartridge casing associated with a firearm reported for tracing under subsection (a) shall be submitted for inclusion in the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.” Section 159 of the act first delayed section 75 by 18 months. St. 2024, c. 206, sec. 51, an emergency law approved September 16, 2024, rewrote section 159 to delay sections 38 and 74 instead, so section 75 took effect with the rest of the act. The act took effect in October 2024: 90 days after approval was October 23, 2024, though a later emergency declaration by the governor may have set an earlier October date; the act’s exact effective date could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026. Section 131Q(a) and (b) also cover tracing of any firearm used in a criminal act, including suicide, with the data sent to ATF; that wording is not in the 2014 version, but versions between 2014 and 2024 were not checked. Separately, St. 2024, c. 139 set aside at least $250,000 for the Worcester police department to buy equipment to access the network.
For practitioners: In a case with a traced gun, ask whether the casings were entered in the network and for any resulting leads.
Pending bills
Formal sessions of the 194th General Court ended July 31, 2026, so the bills below can now pass only in an informal session.
- H.4640 would carry out the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology. The Judiciary committee reported it favorably on October 23, 2025 and sent it to House Ways and Means. No later action is recorded. H.4640
- S.1053, with the same title, was reported favorably on September 29, 2025 and sent to Senate Ways and Means. No later action is recorded. S.1053
- Bills on the board’s membership, H.2660 and S.1717, were sent to study orders on March 19, 2026 and December 4, 2025. H.2660 S.1717
Checked and unchanged
- No act from 2023 to 2026 amends G.L. c. 6, sec. 184A (the board) since St. 2018, c. 69, or c. 22E (DNA database) or c. 278A (forensic analysis motions). Sec. 220 (facial recognition) is unchanged since St. 2020, c. 253.
- The Guide to Evidence rule text for sec. 702 is still the pre-2023 federal wording.
- No statute on rapid DNA, digital forensics, or genetic genealogy was found, other than the one-year budget item above.
- The Legislature’s website has no section history notes. “Unchanged” here rests on a search of every act from 2023 to 2026, not a full citator.
Last updated October 19, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “Massachusetts forensic science oversight: Forensic Science Tracker,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/massachusetts (last updated October 19, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.