How did Berghuis v. Thompkins change the way a suspect must invoke the right to remain silent?

In the context of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court’s decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) significantly altered the requirements for invoking the right to remain silent.

Prior to this ruling, the standard established in Miranda v. Arizona suggested that police must cease questioning if a suspect indicates in any manner that they wish to remain silent. However, Berghuis held that a criminal suspect who has been informed of their rights must explicitly and unambiguously invoke the right to remain silent to require police to stop questioning.12

Under this precedent, merely remaining silent during an interrogation is insufficient to invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, if a suspect does not clearly state that they are exercising their right to remain silent, police are permitted to continue questioning, and any incriminating statements made by the suspect after a period of silence may be used against them in court.12