F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 20 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TERRY JOE LEE CAMPOS, 

Defendant-Appellant 

No. 99-5050

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(D.C. No. 98-CR-75-C)

Scott Troy, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant.

Neal Kirkpatrick, Assistant United States Attorney (Stephen C. Lewis, United

States Attorney, with him on the brief), Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TACHA , McKAY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges,

HENRY , Circuit Judge.

Terry Joe Lee Campos appeals his conviction following a jury trial for

transporting child pornography through interstate commerce via computer, a

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). Mr. Campos argues that: (1) the search of
2

his residence violated the Fourth Amendment, because the warrant purporting to

authorize it was overbroad; (2) the district court erred in allowing the jury to view

the two photographs that he allegedly transported because he had stipulated that

they constituted child pornography; (3) pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b),

testimony regarding the meaning of a screen name registered to his on-line

account should not have been admitted; (4) the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction. For the reasons set forth below, we reject Mr. Campos’s

arguments and affirm his conviction. 

I. BACKGROUND

The government alleged that Mr. Campos transmitted two photographs

constituting child pornography from his home in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, to a

resident of Aurora, Illinois (hereafter “the complainant”). The complainant

testified at trial that, on the evening of April 16-17, 1997, he participated in a gay

and lesbian chat room on America Online (AOL). While in the chat room, he

exchanged messages and photographs with several people, including another AOL

subscriber who used the screen name “IAMZEUS.” After spending two hours in

the chat room, the complainant signed off AOL and went to bed. 

When he awoke at approximately 4:00 a.m. on April 17, the complainant

signed onto AOL again. He discovered that IAMZEUS had sent him electronic
3

mail, including several images of adult male men, and two images of children

engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The complainant copied the images of the

child pornography to a floppy disk, notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI), and gave the disk to the special agent who interviewed him. 

Law enforcement agents determined that the AOL subscriber who used the

name “IAMZEUS” was Mr. Campos, a resident of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. 

Based on this information, the FBI obtained a warrant to search Mr. Campos’s

home and computer. On October 1, 1997, the agents conducted a search of the

Broken Arrow residence occupied by Mr. Campos and Lester Hibbs. They

discovered a computer in a back room of the house and seized it. In examining

the hard drive of the computer, the agents found the two images that had been

transmitted to the complainant, six similar images of children engaging in

sexually explicit conduct, and a copy of a newspaper article describing the

conviction and sentencing of a defendant in Wisconsin federal court for

possessing and transporting child pornography. Prior to trial, Mr. Campos filed a

motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, but the district court

denied the motion.

During the trial, the government presented several witnesses to bolster its

contention that it was Mr. Campos who had sent the pornographic images to the

complainant. Alissa Simon, an employee with AOL, testified that the credit card
4

on the AOL account belonged to Mr. Campos and that Mr. Campos’ account was

terminated by AOL for transferring illegal pictures that violated the terms of

service. An FBI agent who had spoken with Mr. Campos during the search of his

residence reported that Mr. Campos had given an explanation of the AOL account

that was inconsistent with the information provided by Ms. Simon. According to

the agent, Mr. Campos had said that the computer belonged to Lester Hibbs and

that Mr. Hibbs had paid for the AOL account with Mr. Hibbs’s credit card. 

Gary Szabo, a document examiner with the Tulsa Police Department,

testified that he examined two documents found in Mr. Campos’s residence. One

of the documents contained the notation “13Bysk,” which resembled the name of

one of the pornographic files described in the indictment. Mr. Szabo also

testified that, based upon his comparison of the notation with exemplars provided

by Mr. Campos, Mr. Campos probably wrote the notation. 

Additionally, the government offered testimony from Donald Rehman, a

retired state law enforcement agent with experience in investigating computer

crime involving child pornography. Mr. Rehman testified about the meaning of

the screen name “Chicken Hawk,” which resembled one of the screen names

assigned to Mr. Campos’s AOL account (“ChknHawk15”). See Aplt’s App. at

271-74.

In response to the government’s allegations, Mr. Campos presented
1

 In response to Mr. Campos’ argument, the government first contends that

Mr. Campos failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. The government’s 

argument is based on the fact that Mr. Campos did not present any evidence in

support of his motion to suppress and that he did not object to the government’s

evidence at trial on Fourth Amendment grounds. 

5

testimony from three friends and his mother. Mr. Campos’s friends testified that

Mr. Hibbs had told them that the pornographic photographs in question were his,

not Mr. Campos’s. According to Ms Campos’s mother, Mr. Hibbs told her,

“Terry is not the one that did it, that he [Mr. Hibbs] did it.” Id. at 311. 

After hearing all the evidence, the jury convicted Mr. Campos. The district

court sentenced him to thirty-seven months’ imprisonment.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Computer Search

Mr. Campos first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion

to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his residence. According to

Mr. Campos, the law enforcement agents who sought the warrant had grounds to

search only for the two images that had been sent to the complainant by

IAMZEUS. He, therefore, maintains that the warrant authorizing agents to search

for other evidence of child pornography was overly broad and that therefore

violated the Fourth Amendment. We review de novo the district court’s legal

conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the warrant. See United States v.

Simpson , 152 F.3d 1241, 1246 (10th Cir. 1998). 1 
We are not persuaded by the government’s argument. Although Mr.

Campos’s failure to present evidence obviously affects the state of the record, it

does not prevent him from presenting legal challenges to the sufficiency of the

warrant. Moreover, the government should know that a party who has filed a

motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds need not renew his Fourth

Amendment arguments at trial in order to challenge the denial of the motion to

suppress on appeal. See United States v. Hope , 102 F.3d 114, 117 (5th Cir.

1996) (“[W]here there has been a pretrial motion to suppress, the failure to

reiterate the objection [does] not waive it.”) (internal quotations omitted). As a

result, we will consider the merits of Mr. Campos’s challenge to the search.

6

“The Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant describe the things

to be seized with sufficient particularity to prevent a general exploratory

rummaging in a person’s belongings.” United States v. Carey , 172 F.3d 1268,

1271 (10th Cir. 1999). It was adopted in response to the evils of general

warrants—those that allow such exploratory rummaging. See O’Rourke v. City of

Norman , 875 F.2d 1465, 1472-73 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Upon review of the record, we are not convinced that the warrant was

overly broad. Rather than authorizing an unfocused inspection of all of Mr.

Campos’s property, the warrant was directed at items relating to child

pornography. It authorized the agents to seize computer equipment “which may

be, or [is] used to visually depict child pornography, child erotica, information

pertaining to the sexual activity with children or the distribution, possession, or

receipt of child pornography, child erotica or information pertaining to an interest

in child pornography or child erotica.” Aplt’s App. at 27. It also authorized the
7

seizure of books, magazines, films, and videos containing images of minors

engaged in sexually explicit conduct. 

Additionally, the affidavit presented by an FBI agent in support of the

warrant provided an explanation of the ways in which computers facilitate the

production, communication, distribution, and storage of child pornography. 

Moreover, the FBI agent provided an explanation as to why it was not usually

feasible to search for particular computer files in a person’s home:

Computer storage devices . . . can store the

equivalent of thousands of pages of information.

Especially when the user wants to conceal criminal

evidence, he often stores it in random order with deceptive

file names. This requires searching authorities to examine

all the stored data to determine whether it is included in

the warrant. This sorting process can take weeks or

months, depending on the volume of data stored, and it

would be impractical to attempt this kind of data search on

site; and

Searching computer systems for criminal evidence

is a highly technical process requiring expert skill and a

properly controlled environment. The wide variety of

computer hardware and software available requires even

computer experts to specialize in some systems and

applications, so it is difficult to know before a search

which expert should analyze the system and its data. . . .

Since computer evidence is extremely vulnerable to

tampering or destruction (both from external sources or

from destructive code embedded into the system as “booby

trap”), the controlled environment of a laboratory is

essential to its complete analysis. 

 Id. at 17-18. 
8

In the district court proceedings, Mr. Campos presented no evidence to

rebut the agent’s justification of the search of computer files. Moreover, in

neither the district court proceedings nor in his appellate brief has Mr. Campos

offered any case law in support of his contention that law enforcement agents

must limit their inquiries in the manner he suggests: restricting their searches to

the very documents of which they have already seen copies. In fact, a number of

courts have upheld warrants similar to the one he challenges here. See, e.g. ,

United States v. Hall , 142 F.3d 988, 996-97 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding “that the

search warrants were written with sufficient particularity because the items listed

on the warrants were qualified by phrases that emphasized that the items sought

were those related to child pornography”); United States v. Lacy , 119 F.3d 742,

746 (9th Cir. 1997) (upholding warrant authorizing search of the defendant’s

entire computer system, noting that “[t]he government knew that [the defendant]

had downloaded computerized visual depictions of child pornography, but did not

know whether the images were stored on the hard drive or on one or more of his

many computer disks,” and that a customs agent had supplied an affidavit stating

that “there was no way to specify what hardware and software had to be seized in

order to retrieve the images accurately”).

We disagree with Mr. Campos that our decision in United States v. Carey ,

172 F.3d 1268, 1271 (10th Cir. 1999), provides grounds for overturning the
9

search of his computer files. In that case, we did conclude that a police officer

violated the Fourth Amendment in conducting a computer search. However, the

officer had obtained a warrant to search for computer records pertaining to the

distribution of illegal drugs. When the officer inadvertently discovered a

pornographic file, he began looking for similar files, thereby expanding the scope

of the search without obtaining a second warrant. We characterized this conduct

as “an unconstitutional general search.” See id. at 1276. Unlike the officer in

Carey , the officers here did not expand the scope of their search in a manner not

authorized by the warrant. 

Nevertheless, our opinion in Carey notes several important limitations on

the scope of computer searches of which the parties should be aware. In

particular, we observed that the storage capacity of computers may require law

enforcement officers to take a special approach. Id. at 1275 n.7. Computers often

contain “intermingled documents” (i.e., documents containing both relevant and

irrelevant information). See id. at 1275. When law enforcement officers

confront such documents a more particularized inquiry may be required:

[L]aw enforcement must engage in the intermediate step of

sorting various types of documents and then only search

the ones specified in a warrant. Where officers come

across relevant documents so intermingled with irrelevant

documents that they cannot feasiblely be sorted at the site,

the officers may seal or hold the documents pending

approval by a magistrate of the conditions and limitations

on a further search through the documents. The magistrate
10

should then require officers to specify in a warrant which

type of files are sought. 

 Id. (citing Ralphael Winick, “Searches and Seizures of Computers and Computer 

 Data,” 88 Harv. J.L. & Tech 75, 108 (1994)) (footnote omitted).

Here, Mr. Campos offered no evidence as to the methods used by the

officers in searching through his computer files. As a result, we need not

consider whether they followed the approach we outlined in Carey . We,

therefore, conclude that the district court did not err in denying Mr. Campos’s

motion to suppress.

B. Admission of Pornographic Photographs

Mr. Campos next challenges the district court’s decision to allow the jury

to view the two images that the government charged him with transporting via

computer. He maintains that, in light of his offer to stipulate that those images

constituted child pornography, there was no reason to show them to the jury and

to do so was unduly prejudicial. We review the district court’s decision to admit

evidence for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Guardia , 135 F.3d 1326,

1328 (10th Cir. 1998).

Mr. Campos’s argument is based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Old

Chief v. United States , 519 U.S. 172 (1997). In Old Chief , the Supreme Court

held that the district court abused its discretion in a case involving a charge of
11

possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony when it rejected the

defendant’s offer to admit that he had been previously convicted of a felony

(without indicating the nature of the prior felony), and allowed the prosecution to

introduce the judgment of conviction.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court reasoned that because it was the

defendant’s legal status as a previously convicted felon that was at issue, the

defendant’s stipulation satisfied the element of the offense charged. See id. at

186. The Court emphasized that its holding constituted an exception to the

general rule that “the prosecution is entitled to prove its case free from any

defendant’s option to stipulate the evidence away.” Id. at 189. It explained the

reasons for this general rule:

A syllogism is not a story, and a naked proposition in a

courtroom may be no match for the robust evidence that

would be used to prove it. People who hear a story

interrupted by gaps of abstraction may be puzzled at the

missing chapters, and jurors asked to rest a momentous

decision on the story’s truth can feel put upon at being

asked to take responsibility knowing that more could be

said than they have heard. A convincing tale can be told

with economy, but when economy becomes a break in the

natural sequence of narrative evidence, an assurance that

the missing link is really there is never more than second

best.

Id. However, “[t]his recognition that the prosecution with its burden of

persuasion needs evidentiary depth to tell a continuous story has . . . virtually no

application when the point at issue is defendant’s legal status, dependent on some
12

legal judgment rendered wholly independently of the concrete events of later

criminal behavior charged against him.” Id. at 190.

Old Chief ’s holding is thus based on “peculiarities of the element of

felony-convict status and of admissions and the like when used to prove it.” Id. at

191. As a result, it does not support Mr. Campos’s argument. In contrast to the

defendant in Old Chief , Mr. Campos’s offer to stipulate did not involve his legal

status but rather the gist of the government’s current case against him—the two

pornographic images that he allegedly transported via computer. Mr. Campos’s

offer thus sought to deprive the prosecution of the very opportunity that should be

protected: the opportunity to present the “concrete events of later criminal

behavior charged against [a defendant.]” Id. at 190. Accordingly, the district

court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the jury to view the two

pornographic images described in the indictment. 

C. Testimony Regarding Screen Name

Mr. Campos further contends that the district court erred in allowing David

Rehman (the law enforcement agent with experience in investigating child

pornography via computer) to testify about Mr. Campos’s choice of screen

names. We discern no error in the district court’s admission of this evidence. 

Prior to trial, the government filed a notice of intent to present evidence
13

pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), including evidence “that the term

‘Chickenhawk’ is a term denoting pedophiles and collectors of child

pornography.” Aplt’s App. at 47. In response, Mr. Campos stated that he did not

object to this evidence “insofar as the Government wishes to offer so-called

‘expert’ opinions that conclude that such a screen name would gather child

pornography.” Id. at 54. However, Mr. Campos did object to evidence

characterizing him as a pedophile. 

At trial, the government introduced evidence that one of the screen names

registered to Mr. Campos’s AOL account was “ChknHawk15.” See id. at 321.

Additionally, after the government called Mr. Rehman as a witness, the court

heard testimony outside the presence of the jury regarding his qualifications and

the information he would offer about the meaning of screen names. Mr. Campos

objected on the grounds that Mr. Rehman was not qualified as an expert witness. 

See id. at 260, 268 (stating that Mr. Rehman’s testimony “is not science” and that

“there is no recognized field of expertise in this so-called sexual exploitation of

children”). The court ruled that Mr. Rehman would “be permitted to respond to

questions regarding the meaning of the words.” Id. at 268. However, the court

sustained Mr. Campos’s objection “as to the ultimate conclusion.” Id. at 269.

Mr. Rehman then testified before the jury as follows:

Q: What sort of a name is “Chicken Hawk”?
14

A: It’s actually a combination of two words or two

slang phrases. In the parlance of those people who

are involved in the sexual exploitation of children,

chicken generally refers to a young boy typically

probably under the age of 12. A hawk would be

someone who goes after a chicken, so a chicken

hawk would be someone who is interested in young

boys.

Id. at 272.

Mr. Campos now contends that by allowing Mr. Rehman to refer to “the

sexual exploitation of children” the government was able to improperly suggest

that persons using the screen name “Chicken Hawk” were involved in “actually

exploiting children” rather than merely “collecting child pornography.” See

Aplt’s Br. at 19. Mr. Campos thus characterizes Mr. Rehman’s testimony as

improper under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) , which provides that “[e]vidence of other

crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in

order to show action in conformity therewith.”

Before assessing the specific argument advanced by Mr. Campos, it is

important to note that we do not here consider a related but more general issue: 

whether Mr. Rehman’s statement that the name “Chickenhawk” refers to persons

interested in child pornography is impermissible character evidence under Fed. R.

Evid. 404(b). In neither the trial proceedings nor in this appellate brief has Mr.
2

 In fact, some courts have held evidence of a defendant’s nickname is

inadmissible. See, e.g. , United States v. Williams , 739 F.2d 297, 299 (7th Cir.

1984) (concluding that a detective’s testimony about the defendant’s nickname

was improper character evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)).

3

 Our assessment of Mr. Rehman’s testimony as lacking the asserted

prejudicial effect comports with the principle that evidence is generally viewed in

the manner most favorable to the offering party. See K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss

Int’l Corp. , 763 F.2d 1148, 1156 n.9 (10th Cir. 1985) (stating that in assessing

the admissibility of evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 403, the court “give[s] the

challenged evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and its minimum

reasonable prejudicial value”) (quoting 1 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s

Evidence ¶ 403[03], at 403-25 to 403-26 (1982)); see also United States v.

Zipkin , 729 F.2d 384, 389 (6th Cir.1984) (stating that appellate court review of

15

Campos challenged this aspect of Mr. Rehman’s testimony on this basis. 2 

As to the specific challenge that Mr. Campos does raise, we do not agree

that Mr. Rehman’s testimony may be fairly read as stating that those persons

using the screen name “Chicken Hawk” are necessarily pursuing or actually

engaged in sexual activity with children. It is true that the term “sexual

exploitation” is used in some contexts to refer to such actual sexual activity. See,

e.g. , 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). However, the ordinary meaning of the term “exploit” is

broad enough such that the phrase “sexual exploitation” may refer to the

distribution of pornographic images of children. See 5 Oxford English Dictionary

574 (2d ed.1989) (defining “exploit” as “to utilize for one’s own ends, treat

selfishly as mere workable material”). Similarly, the other phrase used by Mr.

Rehman— “interested in young boys”—is broad enough to refer to one who is

attracted to pornographic pictures of them. 3 
exercise of trial court's discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 is “limited,” and must

“look at the evidence in the light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its

probative value and minimizing is prejudicial effect”)). 

16

Accordingly, Mr. Rehman’s testimony does not impermissibly refer to prior

bad acts in the manner deemed objectionable by Mr. Campos. The district court

did not err in admitting it.

D. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Finally, Mr. Campos contends that the evidence was insufficient to support

his conviction. In particular, he maintains that the government failed to prove

that he exercised sufficient dominion and control over the subject computer such

that he could have sent the pornographic images to the complainant. In assessing

this argument, we review the record de novo, viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the government and asking whether a reasonable jury could find

the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Simpson , 152 F.3d at 1251. 

 Mr. Campos’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is based on the

principle that “an individual has constructive possession over an object when he

or she knowingly has ownership, dominion, or control over the object and the

premises where it is found.” United States v. Taylor , 113 F.3d 1136, 1144-45

(10th Cir. 1997). In situations which involve joint occupancy, and where the

government makes its case based on circumstantial evidence the government
17

“must present evidence to show some connection or nexus between the defendant

and the . . . contraband.” Id. at 1145 (internal quotations omitted). Mr. Campos

points to the evidence that he introduced indicating that Mr. Hibbs had taken

responsibility for the pornographic images at issue. 

We are not persuaded by Mr. Campos’s reading of the record. To be sure,

the testimony of defense witnesses provides some support for Mr. Campos’s

contention that he was not responsible for transporting the pornographic images. 

However, the government presented circumstantial evidence supporting its

contention that Mr. Campos was responsible: the AOL account was in Mr.

Campos’s name and it was paid for with his credit card; Mr. Campos admitted he

used the screen name “IAMZEUS;” and the document examiner testified that it

was probably Mr. Campos’s handwriting on a document with the file name

resembling the file name that contained a pornographic photograph.

In light of this conflicting testimony, a reasonable juror could have rejected

Mr. Campos’s defense, relied on the government’s evidence, and found Mr.

Campos guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore conclude that the

evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for transporting child

pornography through interstate commerce via computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252(a)(1). 
18

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM Mr. Campos’s conviction.