Well, folks, in the various states of this nation, we have what are legally classified as "public records." In most, if not all, states, arrest records are classified as public records, subject to disclosure to the press and to anyone else seeking information concerning the particulars of an arrest. Some states make only one page of an arrest record available, with information on the second page held confidential and not subject to public release. In any case, if you are arrested, it is going to be no secret in these United States that an officer of the law saw or otherwise knew of something you did that was, or strongly appeared to be in violation of the law. The lesson, therefore, is NOT to do things that are unlawful or, if you choose to break the law, be clever enough not to get caught. In Richard Roberts’ case, he could kept have kept him out of jail and out of the public records by the simple expedient of not driving 28 miles per hour while under the influence of alcohol. Alternatively, the most clever thing he could have done would be to have used his considerable ill-gotten wealth to hire a cab to haul his drunken ass home.
Contendah,
I believe the SS# is the most disturbing and the one of most concern. Just because the fact that his arrest lies within the "public release" domain doesn't mean all information collected should be released. It doesn't apply to certain private and personal information, such as this, to be included in the release. Ultimately, someone will bear the responsibility for releasing this information without removing certain privileged information first, that the public has no right to. If they were acting in part on behalf of the Tulsa County Sheriff's Dept, that entity can be held liable for any damages that come about on behalf of this information being released.