Investigators traced a food delivery assignment after Dylan Perkins was fatally shot in a Matteson employee parking lot.
MATTESON, Ill. — A network of surveillance cameras and digital delivery information became central to the investigation of a fatal shooting outside an Amazon fulfillment center, where authorities say a food delivery driver killed a contract worker after a short confrontation.
Prosecutors said video recorded the June 28 encounter between Devonta D. Hodge, 33, and Dylan Perkins, 26, in an employee parking area at the facility on Vollmer Road. Investigators then determined that Hodge had been assigned to make a DoorDash delivery there, according to accounts of his initial court hearing. Hodge, a resident of Gary, Indiana, was taken into custody two days later and charged with murder. A Cook County judge ordered him detained while the case continues. The charge remains an allegation, and Hodge has not been convicted.
The investigation began in the final minutes of a Sunday night. Matteson police received a report of shots fired at about 10:54 p.m. and arrived at the large industrial property, which operates around the clock. Officers found Perkins with multiple gunshot wounds. Authorities identified him as a Glenwood resident who worked at the facility through a janitorial company or another third-party vendor. Local reports differed on whether he was pronounced dead at the scene or died after being taken for medical care, but officials agreed that the shooting caused his death.
Before police announced an arrest, the immediate description of the suspect was tied more to his work than to his name. Local officials said a food delivery driver had become involved in an argument with a worker and had left the property after the shooting. That detail gave investigators a limited pool of electronic records to examine. App-based deliveries generally create records connecting a driver, an order and a destination, although authorities have not publicly disclosed the complete DoorDash data obtained in this case or explained whether it was provided voluntarily or through legal process.
Prosecutors later said surveillance footage captured the entire encounter. The existence of video may allow investigators to establish movements, timing and physical actions without relying only on the memories of people present. It does not necessarily answer every disputed question. Camera angle, image quality, missing audio and events outside the frame can affect what a recording proves. Authorities have not released the footage, described whether it contains sound or identified the number and positions of the cameras that recorded the confrontation.
The state’s account began with Perkins taking a break alongside two co-workers. Hodge arrived to deliver food and walked near the group. Prosecutors said Perkins made a joking comment about Hodge’s height as the driver passed. Hodge continued with the delivery, and Perkins approached him afterward, according to the account presented in court. Reports have not provided the complete wording, tone or context of the remark. They also have not established whether Hodge replied immediately or whether either man had previously met.
What happened next will be a central subject of the criminal case. Prosecutors said Hodge pushed Perkins away twice during an altercation. They alleged that he then drew a handgun and fired multiple shots before leaving the lot. No reviewed account said Perkins was armed. Still, the prosecution’s summary at a detention hearing is not a substitute for testimony and evidence tested at trial. Hodge’s defense will have the opportunity to question witnesses, examine the video, seek expert review and offer a different interpretation of the encounter.
Investigators appear to have moved quickly from an occupational description to an identified suspect. Prosecutors said the footage and the delivery assignment pointed to Hodge. Matteson police announced that he met with detectives on June 30 and was taken into custody. The public descriptions characterize his appearance at the station as voluntary, but that does not disclose what arrangements preceded it, whether he had a lawyer present or what he told investigators. No complete interview recording, written statement or police report has been made publicly available.
The vehicle allegedly used that night also entered the prosecution’s account. In her detention order, Cook County Judge Torrie Luciana Corbin wrote that Hodge returned the vehicle to its owner and falsely claimed it was missing. The judge treated that alleged conduct as an attempt to avoid responsibility. Public reports have not named the owner, said when the vehicle was returned or explained how investigators recovered and examined it. It is also unknown whether police say they found physical evidence inside the vehicle.
Corbin ordered Hodge held in custody, calling the death senseless and writing that he had displayed “emotional immaturity in how to resolve conflicts.” A detention order decides whether a defendant will remain jailed before trial; it does not determine guilt. The judge considered the prosecution’s evidence, the seriousness of the charge and allegations about Hodge’s conduct after the shooting. The defense may seek review of the detention ruling or argue later that restrictions short of confinement would be sufficient, depending on the procedural options available in the case.
Firearm records were another part of the state’s presentation. Prosecutors said Hodge had a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification card but lacked an Illinois concealed-carry license. The two credentials are not interchangeable. A FOID card concerns eligibility to possess or acquire firearms and ammunition, while a concealed-carry license is generally required to carry a concealed gun in public. Public reports have not identified the make or model of the handgun, said where it was recovered or disclosed whether forensic testing linked a particular weapon to bullets or cartridge cases from the scene.
Prosecutors also told the judge that Hodge had a prior conviction for unlawful use of a weapon. They did not provide a full account of that conviction in the reports reviewed for this article. Investigators and prosecutors may use criminal-history information during a detention proceeding, but jurors in a future trial would receive only evidence admitted under the rules governing the case. A previous conviction cannot substitute for proof that Hodge committed the charged murder, and the state retains the burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Two co-workers who were with Perkins before the shooting may provide evidence about the words exchanged, the men’s behavior and the moments surrounding the gunfire. Authorities have not named them, which protects their privacy but limits the public’s ability to compare their accounts. It is unclear whether both saw the complete confrontation or only portions of it. Their statements could be used alongside the surveillance video to establish context that cameras alone may not capture, particularly if the recording lacks audio.
The property itself may offer additional evidence because fulfillment centers often contain controlled entrances, security systems and records showing vehicle or visitor activity. Authorities have not said whether Hodge entered the building, where he completed the delivery or how long he remained on the grounds. They also have not disclosed whether investigators obtained phone-location data, app communications, a delivery receipt or messages associated with the order. Those details could appear in later filings even though they were not necessary for the initial public announcement.
Amazon said in early local coverage that it was cooperating with police. The reporting did not indicate that Perkins was directly employed by Amazon; authorities described him as working for a vendor serving the facility. The distinction matters for accuracy but does not change the central fact that he was working at the site when he was killed. DoorDash’s records reportedly helped identify the driver, but the company’s full role in responding to investigators has not been publicly detailed.
The public court docket is intended to provide general information rather than serve as the official court record, and accessible reports did not establish the result of Hodge’s initially scheduled July 16 appearance. As of July 30, no verified trial date or final disposition had been publicly reported in the sources reviewed. Hodge remains presumed innocent, while prosecutors continue building a case expected to rely heavily on video, witnesses, delivery data and evidence concerning what happened after he left the parking lot.
Author note: Last updated July 30, 2026.