What seems bizarre is that an employer would care about a mistaken arrest.
I can see it making a sort of sense in some edges cases. Would you hire a bartender who had been arrested six times on suspicion of DUI just because he was never convicted? I think that would be hard to justify, if my insurance company would even allow it. (So, in my opinion, it's better if I never found out!) However, in general I find the idea distasteful, uncharitable, and un-American.
That said, I suspect most employers just like to have as many legal reasons to reject an applicant as possible to make it harder to be sued (irrespective of whether those employers are racists). In Michigan they were more or less explicit that they put their ban in place because black people are being arrested and charged at rates disproportional to eventual convictions versus other groups.
The way you say it, it's like you think that more and more acquittals is evidence of guilt, but that doesn't make any sense to me.
Repeated arrests would be no accident of chance, but those repeated acquittals would even call into question a conviction in the future. Something is going on to generate false accusations.
You can't be forced to take (or, even, given additional punishment based on an advance-consent licensing provision, as California has and used to enforce) a blood alcohol test without a warrant under Supreme Court case law, and warrants take time.
https://www.mtvlaw.com/blog/2019/august/what-are-pennsylvani...