A Cincinnati ordinance requiring panhandlers to obtain licenses was unconstitutional because it did not provide for a prompt appeal of a denial or revocation of a panhandling license. The ordinance merely stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings shall hear the appeal "within a reasonable time as set forth within its regulations". Provisions prohibiting verbal solicitation in certain areas were upheld as constitutional. State v. Dean (Jan. 12, 2007), Hamilton App. No. C-050871, 2007-Ohio-91. Source: Cincinnati panhandling registration ordinance in part unconstitutional by Chuck Kallendorf, Cincinnati Law Library Blog, Jan. 18, 2007.
A similar suit filed in the federal court, Southern District of Ohio, remains pending. That suit, Henry v. Cincinnati, S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:03-cv-00509-SJD, is discussed in our prior post: Licenses for Panhandlers: Crime Deterrent or Free Speech Violation?. Also, see our prior post concerning Cleveland's aggressive solicitation ordinances: Council Renews Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance, Tweaks Language, Read the New Cleveland Panhandling Ordinance.