member of the Quebec Bar for more than ten years, Moldaver would have upheld his appointment. R v MacKenzie In R v MacKenzie, the accused, Benjamin Cain MacKenzie, was charged with possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking. Police pulled MacKenzie over during a highway traffic stop and, through the use of a sniffer-dog, discovered a large amount of marijuana. MacKenzie alleged the dog's sniff violated his section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure because the police lacked reasonable suspicion he was involved in a drug related offence. Moldaver wrote the majority decision in the 5–4 ruling, holding the search was constitutional. He held that police are permitted to use sniffer-dogs to search for drugs and prevent crimes, even in situations where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, provided the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that the search will reveal evidence of a criminal offence. He emphasized that the police only require a reasonable suspicion that they will find narcotics and not a reasonable probability of finding them. Moldaver said that to determine whether the threshold has been satisfied, common sense, flexibility and experience must be viewed through the eyes of a reasonable person armed with the knowledge, training and experience of the investigating officer. R v Hart In 2014, writing for a unanimous Court in R v Hart, Moldaver established a new test for determining the admissibility of confessions obtained through a Mr. Big operation – a procedure whereby an undercover officer induces a confession as proof of the accused's loyalty to a criminal organization. In changing the common law test for the admissibility of a confession, Moldaver established a new test. In order for a confession to be admissible, Moldaver held that the probative value must outweigh the prejudicial effect. Moldaver expanded this test to protect an accused, by allowing confessions to be admissible only if the accused would not be subject to an abuse of process. He held that "misconduct that offends the community’s sense of fair play and decency will amount to an abuse of process and warrant the exclusion of the statement." R v Nur In 2015, the Court was asked to determine whether the mandatory minimum sentences of three and five years for the possession of a loaded prohibited firearm – contrary to section 95(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code – violated section 12 of the Charter