Reply to post:

"Just because someone has been arrested and then released without charge if the case is still open do you delete everything"

In this case, charges were dropped. This basically means that the case isn't open. It's possible for someone to decide to file new charges, but unless that happens, the people concerned are not subjects of any charges and not arrested. The case is effectively closed, not open.

"do you delete everything e.g. the interview. Do you delete everything when the case is closed and say someone else is convicted. Surely you still have to keep the info just in case there has been a miscarriage of justice."

You can keep that if you need to. The point under dispute is whether you keep a public record of an arrest. You can keep the interviews and evidence in private without allowing the names of the people who were released without charges to be inextricably linked to something that is now viewed as not criminal.

"Personal information like photo/mugshot finger prints dna should be deleted."

I agree, but when they don't do so, they will use the same argument you have just made.

"Of course there is bugger all you can do if it is reported in the press."

Well, you can do some things. In Europe, this is where the right to be forgotten might be used. People will argue about that, but we can skip it for now since this is in America. Still, a newspaper story making clear what happened offers more context than a record that simply says "arrested on felony charge, no trial occurred". Someone doing a background check who reads the article and understands the context is more likely to make a reasonable decision than an automatic system that looks for felony charges in a database and counts people out on that basis.