What is the current state of the law on the interpretation of the Miranda rights?

" 'In certain situations, words that would be plain if taken literally actually may be equivocal under an objective standard, in the sense that in context it would not be clear to the reasonable listener what the defendant intends. In those instances, the protective purpose of the Miranda rule is not impaired if the authorities are permitted to pose a limited number of followup questions to render more apparent the true intent of the defendant.' " (People v. Sauceda-Contreras (2012) 55 Cal.4th 203, 218.) " ' "[W]hen a suspect under interrogation makes an ambiguous statement that could be construed as an invocation of his or her Miranda rights, 'the interrogators may clarify the suspect's comprehension of, and desire to invoke or waive, the Miranda rights.' " ' " (Id. at p. 217.)