Unless you were under arrest when the questions were asked, they likely CAN be used against you. If they simply had you detained while investigating the crime, they almost certainly will be able to use the statements against you.
Originally Posted by Help3232
Speak with an attorney who can evaluate the totality of the case against you.
There are some valid reasons for providing this upon arrest - not the least of which has to do with your receipt of benefits while in custody.
(2nd Question) Also When I got to jail they asked for my social security number and that is very private to me (considering my sister got her credit card used in Mexico) when I told them that the answer "No" the officer had a face like this guy is being uncooperative and sort of threatened(not much) that I was going to get in trouble so I was sort of forced into giving MY social security number out(Is this against my rights)?
You say the officer had a "face" that somehow intimidated you. Did he threaten or coerce you into providing your social security number? if not, then his "face" is irrelevant and you provided it voluntarily.
Sometimes the booking process takes a while. 5 hours is a little long, but not necessarily unreasonable. There might also be reasons for NOT allowing the call. You will have to speak to a local attorney to see if you have a potential claim against the jail.
(3rd Question)...Remember I got arrested at 4:30 abouts I didnít get a hold of my dad till 10 am because my dad called down to the jail and ask if I was there and they had no choice but to let me have my one phone call 5 hours later(is this right)
An arrest requires probable cause to believe a crime was committed. A landlord or someone else might have signed a citizen's arrest, or they might have indicated a desire to pursue a complaint. On the other hand, they might have just articulated a crime to the police and the police pursued the matter.
(4th Question) ...So how could I get arrested without charges pressed that night (is that correct or are the kids saying they didnít but did)
Again, an attorney will be needed to evaluate the situation.
You will still have to answer the charges whether you "accept" the ticket or not. You can plead guilty or not guilty - your choice.
(5th Question) ... at around 12 noon Sunday they brought over a drinking ticket to my parents house and the officer that issued out the ticket I did not see at all. (is this sort of fishy and do I have to accept this ticket or do you think I could fight it)
If you had blown, you might have been able to beat the charge ... if you hadn't been drinking.
(6th and Final Question) ...If this can happen how could I get issued out a drinking ticket with no probable cause) never asked if I drank just said blow in this tube and I said "NO".
Probable cause is a low level of proof. You said you were arrested for property damage. Now it appears they have added on inebriation as well. For that all they need is impairment and alcohol consumption. You can refute each of the charges in court.
Here is a definition of Probable Cause as used in CA (from state and federal case law):
"Probable cause" to arrest (1) requires more than the "reasonable suspicion" necessary for a detention and (2)is essentially the same as the "probable cause" required to obtain an arrest warrant or a search warrant. (Campa (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870, 879; Gorrostieta (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 71, 84.)
Whether "probable cause" exists depends upon the reasonable conclusions that can be "drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest." (Devenpeck v. Alford (2004) 543 U.S. 146, 152; Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366, 371.) "Probable cause" exists when the totality of the circumstances would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person to be arrested is guilty of a crime. (Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 410; Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1037; Charles C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 420, 423.) "[S]ufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment." (Garrison (1987) 480 U.S. 79, 87.)
Your training and experience are relevant to a determination of probable cause. (Guajardo (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1742; Gonzales (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1185; Rosales (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 759; Hayes (9th Cir. 2001) 236 F.3d 891, 894.) However, "an arresting officer's state of mind (except for the facts he knows) is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause." (Devenpeck v. Alford (2004) 543 U.S. 146, 153, added emphasis.)
Probable cause is NOT a high buirden of proof. One can be justly arrested with good probable cause but not convicted. Even if charges are not filed, it does not mean that no probable cause existed to substantiate an arrest.