Opinion ID: 1722174
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The shop and the truck

Text: Mr. Hodge also challenges the search of Mr. Flick's transmission shop and of the pickup truck because it was parked in the curtilage of the house and thus, he claims, was protected against a warrantless intrusion. Mr. Hodge was not the owner of the shop or the truck and thus had no standing to challenge the search on the basis of a proprietary interest in either. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in either the shop or the truck. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). See Davasher v. State, 308 Ark. 154, 823 S.W.2d 863 (1992). As to the argument that he could expect privacy in the truck because it was situated on the curtilage of his home, he cites only authority to the effect that a building or structure or a garden in the curtilage falls within that protection, not a vehicle belonging to some other person.