Alexander Hay appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession and distribution of child pornography by means of a computer. Hay contends that the search of his entire computer system based on a seven-minute, six-month old transmission of 19 images of child pornography was unreasonable; he faults the district court for allowing the jury to view three exhibits containing child pornography; and he submits that his conviction is invalid under our recent decision in
Free Speech Coalition v. Reno,
I
Dr. Blair Evans was arrested on November 29, 1996 in Ontario, Canada for trafficking in child pornography. He had more than 20,000 computer graphic images of child pornography and was actively trading and exchanging child pornography with individuals in the United States through the Internet. According to the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) 2 log in Evans’s computer, two days before his arrest he transmitted 19 graphics files (including images depicting an adult male and a prepubescent girl of about five years engaging in sexual conduct) from his computer to a computer with the Internet address of 128.95.25.1. The Internet address 128.95.25.1 — a unique identifier assigned to a specific computer connected to the Internet — was affiliated with the University of Washington.
On February 27, 1997, Ontario police provided this information to the United Statés Customs Service attache in Canada. On March 11, 1997, the attache forwarded it to the Customs office in Seattle, Washington. Pursuant to a Grand Jury Subpoena issued in the Western District of Washington, the University of Washington informed Customs that the Internet address to which Evans sent the images was assigned to a computer within the University’s Steven’s Court housing facility. The University further advised Customs that this Internet address was associated with a particular Ethernet interface address (00C0F009C4DE) — a unique identifier for a network card plugged into a computer. This Ethernet interface address was also associated with a second Internet address (128.95.25.203) which the University had assigned to Alexander Hay, an Electrical Engineering major. Both Internet addresses were associated with a network port wired to the Steven’s Court apartment occupied by Hay. University records showed that the computer in this apartment was configured sometimes to use the address 128.95.25.1 and other times to use the address 128.95.25.203.
The University also informed Customs agents of Hay’s web site, which Customs Special Agent David Galante accessed on April 23, 1997. On it, Hay described extensive contacts with children, including teaching skiing to preschoolers, working as a preschool day camp counselor, babysitting, volunteering as a YMCA swim instructor for preschoolers, working with a four-year old autistic girl, and spending *633 400 hours as a volunteer in early primary school classrooms.
On May 5, 1997, Customs Special Agent Kristina Laider made an undercover telephone call to Hay at his apartment. The person who answered identified himself as Hay. Laider said she was conducting a computer usage survey and in response to her questions, Hay stated that he owned a computer and kept it in his apartment; that he had an Ethernet card; that he currently used the University of Washington as an Internet Service Provider; and that he was the only user of his computer.
Galante made out a search warrant affidavit which stated that the 19 images sent by Evans were likely to be found in Hay’s computer, described how traders and collectors of child pornography interact over the Internet, and explained that forensic experts could recover even deleted files. On May 28, 1997, a United States Magistrate Judge approved Galante’s application and issued a warrant to search Hay’s apartment and to seize Hay’s computer hardware, software, records, instructions or documentation, and depictions of child pornography. Agents executing the warrant on May 29, 1997 at Hay’s apartment seized his computer along with seven Zip cartridges labeled “Linux Backup,” software, computer disks, and video tapes. One of the two hard drives on Hay’s computer contained hundreds of computer graphics files depicting sexually explicit conduct involving minors, including “thumbnails” which enable the viewer to see multiple pictures simultaneously on the same screen, and an FTP log recording about 50 transactions with Evans.
After Hay was indicted for possessing and distributing child pornography, he moved to suppress this evidence for lack of probable cause to search and on the ground of staleness, but the district court denied the motion. The district court also denied Hay’s motion to reconsider and to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to challenge the veracity of Galante’s affidavit under
Franks v. Delaware,
II
A
Relying on
United States v. Lacy,
In Weber, the defendant placed an order for four pictures of child pornography. Anticipating their delivery at his house, customs agents obtained a warrant to search for books, magazines, photographs, films, video tapes and undeveloped films depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct based on an affidavit which stated the agent’s belief that those items, as well as the four pictures which would arrive as a result of the controlled delivery, would be there. The boilerplate recited how the agent expected “child molesters,” “pedophiles” and “child pornography *634 collectors” to behave, but we found this was inadequate to support the application because there was no evidence in the affidavit indicating that Weber was any of those things. Id. at 1341. In these circumstances, we held that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause that Weber would have anything other than the four pictures at his house.
In Lacy, Customs officials learned that child pornography from a Danish computer bulletin board system called BAMSE was being brought into the United States by computer, and that an individual later identified as the defendant had downloaded six picture files containing computerized visual depictions known as GIFs. Based on a warrant affidavit which stated that Lacy downloaded at least two GIFs depicting minors engaged in sexual activity from BAMSE, a warrant was issued authorizing the search of Lacy’s apartment and seizure of computer equipment and records, and documents relating to BAMSE. We held that this sufficed for probable cause to believe that Lacy actually received and possessed computerized visual depictions of child pornography.
Galante’s affidavit is quite different from the affidavit we faulted in
Weber.
It contains a good deal of evidence from which the magistrate judge could conclude that the 19 files transmitted via FTP to Hay’s Internet address would be found on Hay’s computer system.
4
Evans’s log contained separate entries for each of the 19 file transfers and the transfers occurred at different times over a seven-minute period. The 19 files were not sent to Hay within or attached to an e-mail message; indeed, they did not go to Hay’s e-mail address
(ahay@dilberb.stc.housing.washing
ton.edu) but to his Internet address (128.95.25.1) via FTP. FTP is a protocol for the direct transfer of files and has nothing to do with e-mail. Evans’s files were downloaded directly into the “incoming” directory of Hay’s computer. Ga-lante’s affidavit also recites information obtained from the University’s records indicating that the computer located in Hay’s apartment is sometimes configured to use the specific Internet address to which Evans transmitted, and from Hay himself that he is the exclusive user of the computer in his apartment. Further, there was evidence of Hay’s extreme interest in young children as reflected in what Hay published on his home page. In light of these facts and the fact that Evans had been identified by Ontario police as an active trader of child pornography to the United States, the magistrate judge was entitled to infer that he and Hay had communicated prior to the 19 file transfers and that the transfers were neither unsolicited nor accidental.
See United States v. Rowland,
Hay would have us infer otherwise for several reasons, one of which is that the search made of Evans’s computer would surely have turned up evidence of prior communications had there been any. However, this supposes that the analysis of Evans’s computer was comprehensive. Galante’s affidavit provides no details about the nature and scope of the Evans’s examination from which any inference one way or the other can reasonably be drawn. But the affidavit does provide sufficient *635 information from which the magistrate judge could reasonably believe that there had to be prior communication because the 19 images were sent directly to Hay’s computer by a known trader.
Beyond this, Hay argues that there was no evidence that he fell within a class of persons likely to collect and traffic in child pornography because the affidavit does not indicate that he was a child molester, pedophile, or collector of child pornography and sets forth no evidence that he solicited, sold or transmitted child pornography. In the same vein, Hay contends that Galante’s affidavit did not establish a nexus between the crime and Hay’s apartment because there was no evidence reflecting any specific illegal actions on Hay’s part that took place in his apartment. However, these arguments misfocus the inquiry, which is whether there was reasonable cause to believe the 19 flies from Evans’s computer were located somewhere in Hay’s computer, on electronic storage devices or on printouts, in his apartment. It is well-established that a location can be searched for evidence of a crime even if there is no probable cause to arrest the person at the location.
See Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily,
Hay also maintains that Galante’s affidavit contained mostly generalized, boilerplate opinion testimony. Specifically, he faults language that individuals involved in possession and transportation of child pornography rarely, if ever, dispose of their sexually explicit material and that deleted computer files can likely be retrieved by computer experts. He also cites Galante’s opinion that Hay was likely to possess more than the 19 images from Canada because “in most cases like this one, additional images have been found” and that the pornographic images “are rarely the first or last such images to be collected by the target.” Based on
Rowland,
The “generalized” language in Galante’s affidavit differs significantly from
Rowland,
where the defendant had given a post office box address for delivery of a videotape of child pornography that he ordered. The government obtained an anticipatory search warrant for Rowland’s residence based on an affidavit which described the investigator’s training and experience in the area of child pornography but did not set out any facts suggesting there was reason to believe that Rowland would be likely to view or store such materials at his home rather than elsewhere. The court found the agent’s general experience insufficient for probable cause in the absence of any evidence linking Rowland’s home to the suspected criminal activity. Here, of course, the 19 files were not sent through the regular mail to Hay as the videotapes were in
Rowland;
they were directly transferred to Hay’s computer. Also unlike
Rowland,
where the defendant used a post office box for receipt of pornographic materials, the affidavit here set forth evidence which linked the 19
*636
files to Hay’s apartment by tracing the IP address in Evans’s FTP logs to the computer in Hay’s apartment that Hay told government agents he used exclusively. Further, the boilerplate in Galante’s affidavit provides context for Evans’s transfer of 19 images to Hay’s Internet address, and forms the basis upon which the magistrate judge could plausibly conclude that those files were still on the premises. It sets forth relevant background information about how child pornography is traded and distributed over the Internet: through use of chat rooms to establish contacts, followed by transmission or trading of images. It points out that the computer’s ability to store images in digital form makes it an ideal repository for child pornography. The affidavit also explains that the computer has become one of the preferred methods of distribution of child pornographic materials and opines, based upon Galante’s experience and that of colleagues, that searches and seizures of evidence from computers requires agents to seize all parts of a computer system to be processed later by a qualified computer expert.
See United States v. Gil,
B
Hay additionally contends that the government’s application, which took place six months after Evans transmitted the 19 images to Hay’s computer, was too stale to justify the warrant. However, it follows from
Lacy
that information about the Evans’s transmission was not stale. There, the defendant had downloaded child pornography ten months before the search warrant was sought and similarly argued staleness. Based on the affiant’s explanation that collectors and distributors of child pornography value their sexually explicitly material highly, rarely if ever dispose of it, and store it for long periods in a secure place, we concluded there was ample reason to believe the items sought were still in Lacy’s apartment. As we stated, “[w]e are unwilling to assume that collectors of child pornography keep their materials indefinitely, but the nature of the crime, as set forth in this affidavit, provided good reason to believe the computerized visual depictions downloaded by Lacy would be present in his apartment when the search was conducted ten months later.”
Lacy,
In a related argument, Hay asserts that there must be a
pattern
of activity to infer long-term storage and to support a warrant in child pornography cases. For this he relies on our statement in
Lacy
to the effect that “[t]he information offered in support of the application for a search warrant is not stale if ‘there is sufficient basis to believe, based on a continuing pattern or other good reasons, that the items to be seized are still on the premises.’ ”
Lacy,
C
Finally, Hay contends that the warrant was overbroad and lacked particularity because it authorized the government to *637 search and seize Hay’s entire computer system and virtually every document in Hay’s possession without referencing child pornography or any particular offense conduct or being narrowed by specific acts, time frames or persons. Attachment A(l) to the application identifies (a) computer hardware, (b) computer software, (c) records stored in the form of electronic or magnetic coding or on computer media, (d) computer instructions, (e) printouts, photographs, video tapes or other visual depictions involving child pornography, and (f) records of the distribution of materials that depict child pornography. Attachment A(2) lists all records “involved with child pornography including, but not limited to” Evans and Hay. Although only sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) of Attachment A(l) specifically mention child pornography, the preface limits the scope of the search to “materials which constitute evidence of the commission of criminal offenses; or contraband, the fruits of crimes, or property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing criminal offenses, namely violations of 18 U.S.C. sections 2251 and 2252.” These sections prohibit the sexual exploitation of children and certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors.
As was true in Lacy, “in this case no more specific description of the computer equipment sought was possible.”
Lacy,
Hay compares the wholesale search and seizure of his apartment and computer system to searches and seizures condemned for overbreadth in
United States v. Kow,
Ill
Hay submits that he was entitled to a hearing under
Franks v. Delaware,
IV
Hay seeks reversal of his conviction on the ground that the district court improperly allowed the jury to view three exhibits of photographic depictions of child pornography even though he had stipulated that they constituted child pornography transmitted in interstate commerce. Hay had moved in limine to exclude all thirty-four exhibits that depicted child pornography under Federal Rules of Evidence 403(b). The district court ruled that no images of child pornography would be shown to the jury except upon request, and none was published during the trial. However, during deliberations the jury requested three specific exhibits. One was an image that Hay sent to someone while engaged in an Internet chat on March 16, 1997 that showed Hay (not a hacker) was interested in child pornography and in *639 volved in its distribution. Another was the packet of recovered child pornography files from the partition of Hay’s hard drive that he backed up onto the seven encrypted Zip cartridges; this exhibit also showed that Hay (rather than a hacker) distributed child pornography. The third exhibit was a reconstruction of a page from Hay’s web site based on the contents of his own web browser cache, which showed Hay using his browser to access his system.
Hay contends that
United States v. Merino-Balderrama,
V
After briefing was completed, Hay submitted papers suggesting that his conviction might be infirm in light of
Free Speech Coalition v. Reno,
Hay never challenged the indictment or the instructions on this ground. Indeed, he stipulated that the computer graphics files recovered from his system involved children under the age of eighteen and the stipulation listed the age range of each child in each of the exhibits. Counsel conceded that the material was child pornography. Even assuming the issue is not waived, only one of the counts was charged under § 2256(8) and it does not focus on the two phrases at issue in Free Speech. To the contrary, the jury was specifically instructed that the term “child pornography” means any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct where “the production” involves the “use of a minor [defined as ‘any person under the age of eighteen years’] engaging in sexually explicit conduct” and “such visual depiction is of [a person under the age of eighteen years] engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” A production using a child is very different from morphing, and Hay does not suggest how there could be anything unconstitutional about this definition. We see no error, plain or otherwise.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. FTP is a method of directly transferring files between two computers.
. "SPAM” is unsolicited junk e-mail.
. We review for clear error whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed,
see United States v. Terry,
. Descriptions in warrants must be specific enough to enable the person conducting the search to reasonably identify the things to be seized.
See United States v. Spilotro,
(1) whether probable cause exists to seize all items of a particular type described in the warrant; (2) whether the warrant sets out objective standards by which executing officers can differentiate items subject to seizure from those which are not; and (3) whether the government was able to describe the items more particularly in light of the information available to it at the time the warrant issued.
Id. at 963 (citations omitted).
. Upham rejected a similar attack on the generic nature of the warrant application in a case which also involved the computer transmission of child pornography, observing:
As a practical matter, the seizure and subsequent off-premises search of the computer and all available disks was about the narrowest definable search and seizure reasonably likely to obtain the images. A sufficient chance of finding some needles in the computer haystack was established by the probable-cause showing in the warrant application; and a search of a computer and co-located disks is not inherently more intrusive than the physical search of an entire house for a weapon or drugs.
. We decline to consider Hay's argument that execution of the warrant was overbroad as it was not raised in the district court. See United States v. Robertson, 52 F.3d 789, 791 (9th Cir.1994). Regardless, so far as appears, nothing that was seized or searched which arguably exceeded the scope of the warrant was used. No plain error would, therefore, have occurred.
. “In order to be granted a
Franlcs
hearing, the defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing that: 1) the affidavit contains intentionally or recklessly false statements, and 2) the affidavit cannot support a finding of probable cause without the allegedly false information.”
United States v. Valencia,