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

"[W]hen an individual is taken into custody . . . and is subjected to questioning, . . . the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. . . . [U]nless and until such warnings and waiver [of rights] are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him." (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at pp. 478-479, fn. omitted.) Although there is no " 'precise formulation' " in which the warnings must be given, they must " 'reasonably "conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda." ' [Citation.]" (Florida v. Powell (2010) 559 U.S. 50, 60.)

"No particular manner or form of Miranda waiver is required, and a waiver may be implied from a defendant's words and actions. [Citations.] In determining the validity of a Miranda waiver, courts look to whether it was free from coercion or deception, and whether it was ' "made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it." ' [Citation.] Both aspects are tested against the totality of circumstances in each case, keeping in mind the particular background, experience and conduct of the accused. [Citation.]" (People v.

Page 55