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

Under Miranda, "a person questioned by law enforcement officers after being taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way must first be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. [Citation.] Statements elicited in noncompliance with this rule may not be admitted for certain purposes in a criminal trial. [Citations.] An officer's obligation to administer Miranda warnings attaches, however, only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him "in custody." [Citations.] In determining whether an individual was in custody, a court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a "formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement" of the degree associated with a formal arrest. [Citation.]" ( Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 15281529, 128 L.Ed.2d 293, 298.)

"... Miranda warnings are not required simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. [Citation.]" ( People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, 402, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 280, 247 P.3d 515, italics omitted.) Also, using a ruse to elicit information has nothing to do with whether defendant was in custody for purposes of the Miranda rule. ( California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 11231125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 35193521, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275, 12781279 ; Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714, 719.)