1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

ALM GL ch. 258E, § 3
Page 5
until the next date that the court is open to business. The plaintiff may appear on such next court business day at the
time designated by the order to request that the order be extended. The court may also extend the order upon motion of
the plaintiff, for such additional time as it deems necessary to protect the plaintiff from harassment. The fact that
harassment has not occurred during the pendency of an order shall not, in itself, constitute sufficient ground for denying
or failing to extend the order, or allowing an order to expire or be vacated or for refusing to issue a new order.
(e) The court may modify its order at any subsequent time upon motion by either party; provided, however, that the
non-moving party shall receive sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard on said modification. When the plaintiff's
address is inaccessible to the defendant as provided in section 10 and the defendant has filed a motion to modify the
court's order, the court shall be responsible for notifying the plaintiff. In no event shall the court disclose any such
inaccessible address.
(f) The court shall not deny any complaint filed under this chapter solely because it was not filed within a particular
time period after the last alleged incident of harassment.
(g) An action commenced under this chapter shall not preclude any other civil or criminal remedies. A party filing a
complaint under this chapter shall be required to disclose any prior or pending actions involving the parties; including,
but not limited to, court actions, administrative proceedings and disciplinary proceedings.
HISTORY: 2010, 23; 2010, 112, § 30.
NOTES: Editorial Note
Acts 2010, 23, effective May 10, 2010, enacted this section.
The 2010 amendment, effective May 22, 2010, added "including, but not limited to, court actions, administrative
proceedings and disciplinary proceedings" in the second sentence of (g).
Law Review References
Closing the Loophole in Massachusetts Protection Order Legislation to Provide Greater Security for Victims of
Sexual Assault: Has Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 258E Closed It Enough 17 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Adv. 102
(2012).
CASE NOTES
ALM GL c 258E establishes significant prerequisites to any challenge to rude, uncivil, or profane conduct in
general, let alone by police officials. Ch. 258E provides no easy shortcut to more traditional and appropriate modes of
challenging police conduct, such as defending criminal proceedings or meeting the burden of proving claims under
other civil statutes. Palumbo v. Tusino (2011) 29 Mass L Rep 125, 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 273.
Police officer's lawful exercise of discretion, even though implemented in an antagonistic, angry, and unnecessarily
unhelpful manner during two related encounters initiated by plaintiff, was not harassment under ALM GL c 258E.
Palumbo v. Tusino (2011) 29 Mass L Rep 125, 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 273.
"Acts" prohibited by the anti-harassment statute, ALM GL c 258E, include harassing speech. Palumbo v. Tusino
(2011) 29 Mass L Rep 125, 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 273.
Where plaintiff filed a complaint against a police officer for protection from harassment under ALM GL c 258E,
the court found that while the parties had a rude and angry discussion with raised voices, that conduct did not sink to the