The opinion
PARKS, Judge,
Specially Concurring:
I write separately to stress that this opinion in no way binds this Court in its interpretation of Art. II, § 30, of the Oklahoma Constitution. As Justice Kauger recently observed in Turner v. City of Lawton, 733 P.2d 375, 381 (Okla.1986), this amendment can act as a “double-barrelled source of protection” to safeguard Oklahomans. This, Justice Kauger observed, stems from the United States Supreme Court’s “explicit acknowledgement of the right of state courts, as the final interpreters of state law to impose higher standards on searches and seizures than those required by the federal constitution,” even if the two provisions are similar. However, the circumstances of this case present no conflict, regardless of which provision is being applied. The barn behind which the marijuana was being grown was in such a state of disrepair that the plants could be seen from the road. This building in no way could be interpreted as being curti-lage, an area that “harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” United States v. Dunn, — U.S. —, —, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 1139 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987). Accordingly, I concur.