In a prosecution for sex offenses with a minor under 18, the trial court did not err by admitting into evidence America Online (AOL) instant messages seized from the defendant’s home computer. The warrant sufficiently described the items to be seized: any depiction of actual or simulated sexual acts, or correspondence which related to the exploitation of children. The affidavit supporting the warrant stated that appellant had been communicating with minors through AOL’s instant messaging service. Therefore, it was reasonable to believe that an examination of the computer could confirm or dispel the allegations. The particularity and overbreadth objections were directed at potential evidence which was not used at trial. The only evidence used at trial was the AOL instant messages, and seizure of that evidence was properly authorized by the search warrant.