Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 126B (2026)

Tagging; penalties; suspension of driver's license

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 126B. Whoever sprays or applies paint or places a sticker upon a building, wall, fence, sign, tablet, gravestone, monument or other object or thing on a public way or adjoined to it, or in public view, or on private property, such person known or commonly known as ''taggers'' and such conduct or activity known or commonly known as ''tagging'', or other words or phrases associated to such persons, conduct or activity, and either as an individual or in a group, joins together with said group, with the intent to deface, mar, damage, mark or destroy such property, shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two years or by a fine of not less than fifteen hundred dollars or not more than three times the value of such damage to the property so defaced, marked, marred, damaged or destroyed, whichever is greater, or both fine and imprisonment and shall also be required to pay for the removal or obliteration of such ''tagging'' or to obliterate such ''tagging''; provided, however that when a fine is levied pursuant to the value of the property marred, defaced, marked, damaged or destroyed or where the cost of removal or obliteration is assessed the court shall, after conviction, conduct an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the value of the property so defaced, marked, marred, damaged or destroyed or to ascertain the cost of the removal or obliteration. A police officer may arrest any person for commission of the offenses prohibited by this section without a warrant if said police officer has probable cause to believe that said person has committed the offenses prohibited by this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2009–2013 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Argueta, 899 N.E.2d 896 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Argueta, 899 N.E.2d 896 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “A District Court judge allowed the Com *565 monwealth’s motion to amend the complaint to charge the defendant with two counts of “tagging,” in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 126B. 1 The defendant sought to admit to sufficient facts, and after a colloquy, the judge found sufficient…”
Commonwealth v. Avram A., 982 N.E.2d 548 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). “After admitting to facts sufficient to warrant a find *209 ing of delinquency for “tagging” property in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 126B, the juvenile’s case was continued without a finding for one year with agreed-to conditions which included the payment of restitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.