This post will be updated.

The city's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board has decided to allow the nightclub DC9 to re-open on Dec. 15.

A status hearing was held today on the club's license, which was suspended indefinitely after five of the club's employees were arrested for assault in relation to a man's death outside of the club in October.

Those charges have since been dropped, and the liquor board was weighing whether DC9 employees ran afoul of liquor laws when they ran after and laid hands on 27-year-old Ali Ahmed Mohammed. Mohammed had thrown a brick through the front window of the club.

As part of the deal, DC9 co-owner Joe Englert agreed not to employ any of the five men, Bill Spieler, Evan Preller, Arthur Zaloga, Reginald Phillps, and Darryl Carter, in any of his bars (he owns or co-owns many across the city) at least until a Jan. 19 ABC Board status hearing.

Another condition placed on the bar's re-opening was a mandate to hire a reimbursable police detail to be posted during the time the bar is open, also until at least Jan. 19. A representative for the Office of the Attorney General told the board she expects that an autopsy report will be available from the D.C. medical examiner before the next status hearing.

Outside the building, about 20 protesters gathered with signs that expressed their outrage at the ruling. "No more DC9," they chanted.

"We will not be 100 percent satisfied until DC9 is shut down permanently," says Aman Deka, who also promised to protest outside the bar should Englert decide to re-open.

But inside the hearing room, a different tone was set early on. Assistant Attorney General Louise Philllips opened the proceedings by calling Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration investigator Erin Mathieson back to the stand, who proceeded to itemize the additional security measures the bar has put in place since it's been closed. Those measures include a high-tech, 18-camera surveillance system that Mathieson described as "one of the best I've ever seen."

Phillips then told the board that the District believes DC9 is "no longer any imminent danger to the public at large." None of the employees involved in the incident work there anymore, a revised security plan is now on file that outlines new procedures that prohibit employees from detaining patrons, and all remaining employees have received 10 hours of additional security training from an outside security expert, Phillips said. 

It's unclear when Englert might elect to re-open the bar. Dec. 15 is the earliest date he could do so, but the stipulation that he would have to employ a reimbursable police detail for an interim period would make it an expensive proposition. His representative before the board, Andrew Kline, asked the board to file its ruling within 72 hours so that Englert can weigh how he wants to proceed.

In the end, the agreement not to employ any of the five men involved in the incident at any of Englert's nightlife establishments was the real sticking point for the board. In a statement shortly before the vote, board chairman Charles Brodsky said it was important "that Mr. Englert shows a sensitivity that these people have been implicated in an altercation that is very sensitive to the community."

Can DC9 employees ever use force in the future?

Earlier today TBD took a closer look at the issue of whether nightclub employees are ever allowed to use force to maintain or restore order. Members of the D.C. nightlife community had expressed concern about a revision to DC9's security plan that stipulates employees may never detain anyone.

A few details on this issue became more clear at today's status hearing. Kline explained that the club's security plan does allow employees to use force (while inside the club) under two circumstances: in self-defense, and to prevent a third party from being injured. What's not allowed to is to hold anyone against their will.

But the murky issue of what's allowed on the immediate sidewalk still remains. By law, no one but Metropolitan Police Department officers may use force in the public space, even though the ABC Board has previously encouraged nightclubs to include the immediate area outside their doors in their security plans.