Constitutional Limits on the Regulation of Laboratory Animal Research
Larry T. Garvin · The Yale Law Journal · 1988
Animal rights activists, long unsuccessful, have recently reversed their legislative fortunes.Except for the 1985 amendments' to the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA),' the successes have occurred at the state and local levels, the scenes of most animal rights lobbying and organization.Most notable are two measures recently enacted in Massachusetts, long a home of anti-vivisectionist 3 activity.In 1983, Massachusetts became the first, and so far the only, state to ban both the use of in-state pound animals and the importation of out-of-state pound animals for research.4 In 1987, Cambridge became the first area to ban the LD 50 5 and Draize 6 1987) (Congress could grant animal welfare activists standing).Fourth Amendment concerns arise because some states allow humane societies or other animal inspectors to investigate laboratories without warrants.See, e.g., ME.REv.STAT.ANN.tit. 7, § 391 (West Supp.1987); MAss.GEN~i.LAWS ANN.Ch. 140, § 174D (West Supp.1988).Such searches may violate Fourth Amendment constraints upon illegal searches.Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978) (part of Occupational Safety and Health Act which permitted warrantless inspections held unconstitutional); cf State v. Osborn, 63 Ohio Misc.17, 409 N.E.2d 1077 (Montgomery County Ct. 1980) (Fourth Amendment applies to cruelty searches).8.For a discussion of the origins of the American humane movement, see J. TURNER, RECKON-ING WITH THE BEAST 45-59 (1980).9. Before 1850, seven states and territories had enacted anti-cruelty laws.Seventeen adopted such laws by 1860, twenty-four by 1870, and thirty-six by 1880.All other states enacted them by 1921.E.