Final answer:
The statement 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer' might not be enough to invoke the right to counsel under Miranda, making it false that officers must stop questioning. Suspects need to assert their rights for interrogation to cease. Miranda rights are crucial and must be waived unequivocally for questioning to continue.
Step-by-step explanation:
Regarding the query on whether law enforcement officers are required to stop questioning a suspect if they make an ambiguous reference to a lawyer after waiving their Miranda rights, the answer is often considered to be False. An ambiguous or indirect statement about possibly needing a lawyer may not be enough to invoke the right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona. Law enforcement officers are obliged to cease questioning only if a suspect asserts their right to an attorney. Thus, statements like "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer" might not fulfill the threshold for a clear assertion, and police could potentially continue the interrogation.
Suspects need to be unequivocal when asserting their rights to halt questioning and consult an attorney. Judgments like Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona highlight the need for police to advise suspects of their rights and underscore the point that questioning must stop when a suspect clearly states they wish to remain silent or seek an attorney.
The Miranda Warning is central to these protections ensuring that suspects are aware of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. The Michigan v. Jackson decision reflects a prior stance that any waiver of the right to counsel after a defendant asserts this right is invalid, although this was later overruled by Montejo v. Louisiana.