What is the current state of the law on the Miranda rule?

"The Miranda rule and its requirements are met if a suspect receives adequate Miranda warnings, understands them, and has an opportunity to invoke the rights before giving any answers or admissions. Any waiver, express or implied, may be contradicted by an invocation at any time. If the right to counsel or the right to remain silent is invoked at any point during questioning, further interrogation must cease." (Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 560 U.S. 370, 387-388.)

"In order to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege after it has been waived, and in order to halt police questioning after it has begun, the suspect 'must unambiguously' assert his right to silence or counsel." (People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 535.) "It is not enough for a reasonable police officer to understand that the suspect might be invoking his rights." (Ibid.) "Faced with an ambiguous or equivocal statement, law

enforcement officers are not required under Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, either to ask clarifying questions or to cease questioning altogether." (Stitely, at p. 535.)