Let's say that I'm being questioned by police as a suspect, and I'm too stupid to have asked for an attorney I could trust to be there.
The police are going to try to get me to do things that may be against my own self interest, such as answering potentially incriminating questions, provide my DNA/fingerprints to them, or consent to a search. The police are going to do their best to make it sound as if I should, or have to, do this without informing me that I have a choice in the matter, all this stuff helps them with their job and they have no incentive not to do so.
Let's say I do not wish to go along with one of the things the police want from me, like provide my DNA. Without an attorney present for me to consult with I ask the police offers trying to convince me I need to give my DNA rather I am legally required to provide it.
My question is rather or not the police officer has to inform me that I could refuse to give the DNA sample? A police officer has the right to utilize deception to get evidence, and I've already foolishly sacrificed my own right to an attorney present to answer these sort of questions for me. So can a police officer knowingly deceive me into thinking I have to provide my DNA after I explicitly asked him rather I was compelled to do so? Or is the police officer still held to a standard of honesty when it comes to describing my legal rights, even if he can otherwise freely deceive me?
I know from a previous question that the police officers don't need to be up front with rather or not they are detaining me, but in this case I'm not asking rather they have the right to be evasive, and instead rather they can actively misrepresent the facts of my legal rights and requirements.
I use DNA sample as my example here, but I'm curious for any situation where a suspect may be uncertain of rather or not their legally required to consent to something an officer wants, not just providing DNA samples.