Envy Lounge owner placed on probation for failing to have dance hall permit
by Chuck Hoven

(Plain Press, May 2008) On April 14th, Envy Lounge owner Zlatan Miskin pleaded no contest to charges of operating a dance hall without the proper permit. Miskin, who appeared before Judge Ronald B. Adrine on April 9th and April 14th in Criminal Branch of Cleveland Municipal Court, operates the club at W. 25th and Chatham.

Judge Adrine sentenced Miskin to 30 days in jail, then suspended that sentence and put Miskin on one-year probation and ordered him to pay court costs of $261.

Defense attorneys in the case initially argued that the dance hall permit law, written in the 1930s was archaic, vaguely written and unevenly applied throughout the city. They contended that out of 700 liquor establishments in the City of Cleveland, many of whom have entertainment and allow dancing, only 22 have dance hall permits. They also argued that they had a state liquor license and the state of Ohio should monitor their license, not the city of Cleveland. The attorneys further argued that liquor establishments have a reasonable right to privacy and that police officers should have obtained a warrant before entering the establishment. They charged selective enforcement saying that recreation centers and churches hold dances but are not required to have dance hall permits. They also claimed the establishment was being targeted because the people who patronize the establishment were African-American. He wondered why other clubs, for example those who provide Irish music and dancing, were not being given citations.

The Prosecutor argued that the permit law is in place for public safety and enforcement of the law is complaint driven. They noted that a club nearby Envy that serves white patrons had also been cited under the law, as well as La Copa on Clark Avenue, which serves largely Hispanic patrons. Richard Riccardi of the City of Cleveland Department of Building and Housing explained that the dance hall permits were renewable every two years and required inspection for public safety reasons to assure for example that exits were not blocked.

The prosecutor noted the owner of Envy was aware that he needed a dance hall permit yet continued to have entertainment in defiance of the law. Prosecutor argued that police were allowed by law to enter the establishment to do a liquor permit inspection at any time. Published ads in the Plain Dealer indicate the establishment was offering dancing. Police entering the establishment can observe the dancing.

Judge Adrine asked whether every restaurant and bar in the City of Cleveland that has dancing and is required by the City of Cleveland to have a dance hall permit, have such a permit. He asked whether the city had a central place with a list of all such establishments required to have a dance hall permit. Riccardi said there is probably not such a list, but the city does have a list of those with current permits and those who have applied for permits. The city then depends on citizen or city council member complaints to initiate an inspection.

News & Articles | Archives