No, they can use truthful statements against you as well. There are plenty of innocent men in prison because they simply said something they believed to be the truth.
A statement can sound perfectly innocent to the person who said it, and yet either sound incriminating or hold the potential to be made to sound incriminating to others.
Plus, lying to police will get you in legal trouble. Either directly (lying to a federal agent is a crime) or indirectly (pattern of evasive behavior). You might simply be misremembering, but as far as the police and courts are concerned, any false statement is a deliberate lie.
Saying something that one knows to be true is different than saying something that one only believes to be true.
Yes, it is every persons right to refuse to discuss anything with the police without an attorney who is representing themselves present. Please keep in mind that an omission of the truth can be construed as being as much of a lie, as lying itself.
By intentionally avoiding any response in the OPs case and not communicating with the police at all, a risk is taken that the police will simply take the omission as an indication of guilt and camp-out on his doorstep until a Warrant is obtained in which case considering the lack of cooperation, the door will most likely be busted in and then when they find that there was no evidence of any wrong doing, the occupant has little chance of winning a suit filed against the City/County or other LEA for damages and most insurance policies will not pay if they find it was the result of the policy owners negligence. Had the statement been given as I suggested above and the same scenario occurred, it is more likely that a law suit against the LEA involved would yield positive results for monetary and emotional damages, because the LEO's can not say that the occupant was completely unresponsive. IMHO nothing is worse in the eyes of most Juries than to be shown in court as being arrogant and completely uncooperative with the police.
This is of course subjective and each and every case/situation will be different, it does not change that we each have to think about the possible outcomes of our actions before we act, or know that we will fully accept the responsibility for any variant result that may occur. I am not suggesting that we should blindly answer all their questions or that we should not inform them that we do not consent to unlawful searches, seizures or questioning and that we not question their motives in return. But as I said, each situation will be different.
So, if that means that we sit with a Lawyer and go over multiple seanarios till we have a better than average grasp of how each action's paths can lead to multiple possible results and how best to handle each of them, then we should and hopefully we will at least learn how best to be seen as
not refusing to cooperate while limiting our statements to be concise and
nothing but the truth.
No, IANAL, but I have done as I suggested above and when I have a chance to do it again.. I will and again if need be, till I feel I have covered all possible scenarios.