Under what condition can evidence from a nonconsensual interceptor be destroyed?

The correct answer revolves around the legal guidelines governing the handling of evidence obtained through nonconsensual interception, typically related to wiretaps or surveillance. The stipulation that evidence can be destroyed "in 10 years with a court order" reflects the legal requirement to maintain evidence for a certain period due to its potential relevance in future legal proceedings.

This approach balances the need for law enforcement to retain potentially pertinent information while also protecting individuals' rights and privacy. By specifying that destruction occurs only with a court order, it ensures that there is judicial oversight before evidence is discarded, which is crucial in maintaining legal integrity and the rights of individuals.

Other options present conditions that do not align with established legal protocols. For instance, destroying evidence after three years without a case or implying that it can happen whenever a judge allows it lacks the necessary structure and specificity regarding timelines and orders. Additionally, asserting that evidence can be destroyed after it is no longer relevant to ongoing investigations overlooks the structured legal processes governing evidence retention, especially concerning nonconsensual intercepts.