privacy. Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217, 223 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Villarreal, 935 S.W.2d at 138. This is a non-exhaustive list of factors, and no one factor is disposi-tive. Granados, 85 S.W.3d at 223. “Although we defer to the trial court’s factual findings and view them in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, we review the legal issue of standing de novo.” Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 59 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Appellee had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The property where the search and seizure occurred was owned by Deanna Hall. While he no longer lived at the residence, Appellee had permission from his aunt to keep his dogs in the backyard and to enter the premises in order to water a , 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, based upon the totality of the
holding that a hotel guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his room during the period of time for which the room is rented holding that a lessee of a home could not consent to a search of a bedroom that was used exclusively by a temporary gratuitous guest because the guest had an expectation of privacy in the bedroom holding that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his hosts home holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in gambling records stored under his parents bed although he did not reside regularly at his parents home he kept clothing there and had occasionally remained overnight holding that the constitutional protection of an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business