Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271, § 17B (2026)

Use of electronic communications records in ongoing criminal investigations; subpoena of records

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 17B. Except as otherwise prohibited under section 2703 of Title 18 of the United States Code, whenever the attorney general or a district attorney has reasonable grounds to believe that records in the possession of: (i) a common carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the department of telecommunications and cable, as provided in paragraph (d) of section 12 of chapter 159; or (ii) a provider of electronic communication service as defined in subparagraph (15) of section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code; or (iii) a provider of remote computing service as defined in section 2711 of Title 18 of the United States Code, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation, the attorney general or district attorney may issue an administrative subpoena demanding all such records in the possession of such common carrier or service, and such records shall be delivered to the attorney general or district attorney within 14 days of receipt of the subpoena. No such common carrier or service, or employee thereof, shall be civilly or criminally responsible for furnishing any records or information in compliance with such demand. Nothing in this section shall limit the right of the attorney general or a district attorney to otherwise obtain records from such a common carrier or service pursuant to a search warrant, a court order or a grand jury or trial subpoena.

No subpoena issued pursuant to this section shall demand records that disclose the content of electronic communications or subscriber account records disclosing internet locations which have been accessed including, but not limited to, websites, chat channels and newsgroups, but excluding servers used to initially access the internet. No recipient of a subpoena issued pursuant to this section shall provide any such content or records accessed, in response to such subpoena.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1996–2019 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Chamberlin, 45 N.E.3d 900 (Mass. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Chamberlin, 45 N.E.3d 900 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 26× “The basis for the defendant’s challenge is the government’s failure to comply with G. L. c. 271, § 17B, the telephone records demand statute, as then in effect.”

Commonwealth v. Fulgiam, 73 N.E.3d 798 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 4× “837 (2015), we concluded that government-compelled production of CSLI by cellular telephone service providers was a search in the 10 Fulgiam also argues that the Commonwealth relied on information obtained by an invalid administrative subpoena issued on August 4, 2011, pursuant…”

Commonwealth v. Molina, 71 N.E.3d 117 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 6× “Second, the defendant challenges the validity of the administrative subpoena that issued under G. L. c. 271, § 17B, for Internet service records; he argues that the subpoena, to be constitutional, could only be issued based on a showing of probable cause.”

Commonwealth v. Augustine, 4 N.E.3d 846 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 2× “14 in telephone billing records and therefore search warrant not required; records may be obtained under G. L. c. 271, § 17B, by administrative subpoena on “reasonable grounds for belief” of telephone’s use for “unlawful purpose”); 27 Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Feodoroff, 686 N.E.2d 479 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 8× “Telephone records obtained under G. L. c. 271, § 17B. Under G. L. c. 271, § 17B, as inserted by St.”

Commonwealth v. Vinnie, 698 N.E.2d 896 (Mass. 1998). · cites it 2× “On April 20, 1990, the district attorney requested records from the New England Telephone Company for Vinnie’s print shop telephone, pursuant to an administrative subpoena in compliance with G. L. c. 271, § 17B, set out in relevant, part in the margin.”

Commonwealth v. Avila, 912 N.E.2d 1014 (Mass. 2009). “See G. L. c. 271, § 17B. A number of witnesses — two police officers and Cruz —• testified about Cruz’s taking a lie detector test at the request of the police investigators and about some of the results of that test.”

Commonwealth v. Augustine, 35 N.E.3d 688 (Mass. 2015). “4, that the records were subpoenaed pursuant to G. L. c. 271, § 17B. 8 The telephone call to Barnett on the morning of August 26, 2004, was the last outgoing call from Jules’s cellular telephone mentioned in McCauley’s affidavit.”

Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 38 N.E.3d 231 (Mass. 2015). “Prior to July 25, 2012, an assistant district attorney obtained through administrative subpoenas, see G. L. c. 271, § 17B, certain telephone records (call logs) of Bradley and Marshall.”

Commonwealth v. Campiti, 668 N.E.2d 1308 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “The affidavits supporting the warrant applications for the electronic surveillance — almost all by Trooper Higgins —- ran to nearly three hundred pages and contained information from many different sources: named witness statements; confidential informant statements; information…”

Commonwealth v. Chamberlin, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 705 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “” 1 *707 The defendant’s phone records were produced by T-Mobile voluntarily and without the issuance of an administrative subpoena, G. L. c. 271, § 17B, although T-Mobile accompanied the production with a request for a subpoena within forty-eight hours.”

Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 130 N.E.3d 174 (Mass. 2019). “16 It is certainly not ideal that, prior to making an identification, each witness was apparently aware that the victim had been killed and suspected the defendant's involvement.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

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.