HIALEAH, FL. Back in March 2026, state inspectors walked into Herradura Liquors & Wine and found the Hialeah shop operating without a valid food permit, a violation that state law, specifically Florida Statute 500.12, requires inspectors to document as a formal citation.
The inspection, conducted on March 4 by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, was categorized as an "Operating Without a Valid Food Permit" visit. Inspectors recorded seven total violations. None were classified as priority violations, and none were repeats from prior inspections.
What Inspectors Found
The permit violation was the centerpiece of the inspection. According to the inspector's notes, an application for a food permit had been submitted before the visit, but the store had not yet paid the required fee. The inspector's report stated the establishment must "remit payment of the appropriate fee within 10 days."
The knowledge failures were also notable. The inspector wrote that the person in charge "did not correctly answer questions related to food-borne illnesses and symptoms." A separate violation noted the store was unable to verify that food employees understood their responsibility to report diagnoses and symptoms connected to foodborne illnesses. A reporting agreement was provided to the business by email during the inspection.
In the backroom employee restroom, the inspector found no paper towels at the handwashing sink, no handwashing sign posted, and no covered trash receptacle. All three were corrected before the inspector left. The restroom door, however, was not self-closing as required, and that violation was not corrected on site.
What These Violations Mean
Operating without a valid food permit is not a paperwork technicality. A permit is the mechanism by which the state tracks and regulates a food establishment. Without one, there is no formal, current record that the facility has met baseline safety standards for the type of food it handles. At a minor outlet like a liquor store selling prepackaged goods, the risks are lower than at a full-service restaurant, but the permit requirement exists precisely because even sealed products need to be stored, handled, and sold under conditions the state has verified.
The person-in-charge violations carry a different kind of weight. When the individual responsible for overseeing a food establishment cannot correctly answer questions about foodborne illness symptoms and transmission, that signals a gap in the foundational training that state rules require. At Herradura Liquors & Wine, inspectors documented both that the person in charge failed those questions and that there was no verifiable system in place for employees to report illness. Those two findings together mean that if a sick employee handled products in that store, there was no reliable chain of awareness to catch it.
The handwashing failures, while corrected quickly, reinforce the same concern. A sink without paper towels or a posted reminder sign is a sink that may not get used. For a prepackaged retail outlet, the risk is more limited than in a kitchen, but the requirement exists across all permitted food establishments for a reason.
The uncorrected restroom door matters less in isolation. A door that does not self-close allows odors and potential contaminants to travel more freely into adjacent food storage or handling areas. At this facility, the backroom restroom is directly adjacent to the employee work area.
The Longer Record
The March 4 inspection was categorized specifically as an "Operating Without a Valid Food Permit" visit, meaning the FDACS inspection was triggered by the permit status, not a routine cycle. The data shows zero repeat violations, which means the seven violations documented in March had not appeared in prior inspection records for this facility.
That context cuts two ways. On one hand, no repeat violations suggests the store had not been cited for the same problems before. On the other hand, the permit violation itself means the establishment was operating in a regulatory gap, outside the normal inspection schedule that would catch and track recurring problems.
The inspection record does not include a prior inspection count that would allow a direct comparison across visits. What the record shows is a facility that, in March 2026, was running without current authorization and whose responsible party could not pass basic food safety knowledge questions when asked directly by a state inspector.
Four of the seven violations were corrected before the inspector left the building: the missing paper towels, the absent handwashing sign, the uncovered trash can, and the employee illness reporting agreement, which was transmitted by email during the visit. The restroom door remained non-self-closing when the inspector departed. The permit fee payment was given a 10-day deadline to resolve.