|J.D., Northeastern University School of Law
B.A., University of Michigan
Courses and administrative duties
Associate Professor Hillary B. Farber teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence. Her research focuses on criminal law and criminal procedure issues, with a particular focus on juveniles and issues of privacy.
Professor Hillary B. Farber has published articles on topics such as juvenile interrogations, a parent-child testimonial privilege, and the privacy and regulatory issues implicated by the use of unmanned aircraft systems.
Professor Farber has appeared on national radio and television programs commenting on the domestic use of unmanned aircraft systems. She recently spoke at a groundbreaking conference on the use of unmanned aircraft systems in the News and Entertainment Industries hosted by the Biederman Institute in Los Angeles, CA. In February 2014 Professor Farber presented on the U.S. regulatory and legislative approaches to unmanned aerial surveillance in Adelaide, South Australia. She has also been a guest lecturer at Flinders Law School in Adelaide, South Australia and the University of New South Wales Law School in Sydney, Australia. Her most recent article on the subject is Eyes in The Sky: Constitutional and Regulatory Approaches to Domestic Drone Deployment, 64 Syracuse L Rev. 1 (2013).
Professor Farber serves on the Advisory Board of the Boston Chapter of the American Constitution Society, the Board of Directors for Suffolk Lawyers for Justice, and the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. She is a founding member of the New England Innocence Project. Ms. Farber earned a B.A. in political science with high honors from the University of Michigan and received her J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law.
Watch Professor Farber's recent appearance on Fox 25 Boston.
Eyes in the Sky: Constitutional and Regulatory Approaches to Domestic Drone Deployment, 64 Syracuse L. Rev. 1 (2013).
“Keep Your Eyes on Eyes in the Sky”, Cape Cod Times, (January 10, 2014);http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140110/OPINION/401100309/-1/OPINION0310
JDB v. North Carolina: Ushering in a New “Age” of Custody Analysis under Miranda, 20 J. L. & Pol’y 117 (2011).
A Parent’s “Apparent Authority”: Why Inter-Generational Co-Residence Requires a Reassessment of Parental Consent to Search Adult Children’s Bedrooms, 21 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 39 (2011).
To Testify or Not to Testify: A Comparative Analysis of the Australian and American Approaches to a Parent Child Testimonial Exemption, 46 Tex. Int’l L. Journal 109 (Fall 2010).
The Absence of A Parent-Child Evidentiary Privilege in the United States, American Bar Association, 12 Children’s Rights 3 (Spring 2010).
Do You Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth Against Your Child? 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 551-624 (Winter 2010).
A Parent-Child Evidentiary Privilege, 32 Mass Dissent 10 (November 2009).
“Safe Homes’ Inherent Perils”, Boston Herald, February 23, 2008.
Joining the Legal Significance of Adolescent Developmental Capacities with the Legal Rights Provided by In re Gault, 60Rutgers L. Rev. 125-173 (2007) (co-author).
Juvenile Expunction Legislation and its Relationship to the Core Mission of the Juvenile Justice System, American Bar Association, 9 Children’s Rights 17-19 (2007).
Constitutionality, Competence, and Conflicts: What is Wrong with the State of the Law When It Comes to Juveniles and Miranda?, 32 New Eng J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 29-42 (2006).
The Role of the Parent/Guardian in Juvenile Custodial Interrogations: Friend or Foe?, 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1277-1312 (2004).
Popular Culture as a Lens on Legal Professionalism, 55 S.C. L. Rev. 351-389 (2003) (co-author).