People v. James Jacobs

San Mateo County, case 26-NF-001236-B. Police attended a house in San Bruno on 01/06/26, called it a civil dispute and released everyone. Thirteen days later the same officer made an arrest. Start with the defendant’s own sworn account, then check it against the prosecution’s file — all of which is posted below.

Why this case matters

California gives a property owner no fast way to recover a house occupied by people who hold no lease, and a market grew up to fill that gap. This prosecution asks whether that market is allowed to exist — and the answer reaches well past this defendant, to repossession agents, lockout services, private security and debt recovery alike.

Read why this case matters →

1. The declaration

The declaration he signed, exactly as filed. Press play and the words light up on the document itself, in time with his voice — or click any word to jump the audio to it.

· click any word to jump the audio there Download as PDF
Loading the signed declaration…

2. The body-camera footage

Every recording in the case, in one player. The default is both body cameras — Arthur Gutierrez’s and James Jacobs’s — synchronised side by side as one 34-minute recording. Nothing cut, reordered or slowed. Pick a recording:

3. How three squatter-removal businesses compare

Each company’s own footage, compared job by job and shown in full. Nothing here says whether any conduct was lawful. Pick a video:

Swipe the table sideways to see all three →

ASAP Squatter Removal
San Bruno, 01/06/26
Squatter Hunters
A&E, Conroe, TX
Squatter Squad
V1: Los Angeles, 03/18/24 · V2: 01/08/24
WhoJames Jacobs, Art Gutierrez + Crew & SecurityFlash Shelton, Justice Shelton & Cameron ButlerLando Thomas & Kimrey Kotchick + Crew
Authority30-day lease + prior move-inRenovation lease signed that day24-hour inspection notice & power of attorney
Occupants“You’ll get shot in the face”“I’m not leaving”“Take me to court”
BreachExterior: Battering-rammed gate
Interior: No doors forced
Exterior: Front door open
Interior: Chainsawed & sledgehammered the squatter’s door
V1: Kicking in a door & removing glass doors
V2: Bolt cutters on the gate lock
ToolsRam, katana, pistol, body armor, flashlightChainsaw, sledgehammer, megaphone, stun gun, body armorPry bar, wrench, bolt cutters, baseball bat, golf club
Police6 officers; detained then treated as civilNone during the job8 officers; “didn’t interfere”
ClearingOrganized walk-through, checking & prepared for threatsOrganized walk-through, checking but not prepared for threatsN/A: Unorganized walk-through, not prepared for threats
OutcomeJacobs arrested 01/19/26 & chargedHotel & gas money offered; locks changed; no chargesSigns, new lock & boarded windows; no charges

4. What the witnesses said under oath

All five were called by the prosecution at the preliminary hearing on 03/03/26–03/04/26 and cross-examined. Both kidnapping counts were dismissed at the end of it. Their own testimony is set out below, witness by witness.

Silvino Manzano — the primary occupant, named in Counts 2 and 7

The prosecution’s positionWhat he said on the stand
He was held against his willHe announced he was calling 911 and confirmed “no one stopped” him. He then walked out and waited on the front porch for police.
He had lived there 45 years“Off and on” since age five; ten years continuously before the sale. He moved away in his twenties and kept it as a mailing address.
He was wrongly displacedHis mother sold the house and moved away. The estate agent gave him 12 days. He never gave a move-out date, signed no lease anywhere and had filled out zero rental applications.
He was living there lawfullyAfter the house was cleared he re-entered through an open window — agreeing it was a house “your mother didn’t own anymore” — and then increased the number of people living there.
He identifies the defendantAsked directly by the prosecutor whether he had seen Mr. Jacobs on the property, he answered: “Not Jacobs.” He also conceded he does not know who took his property.

Patrick Calleja — named in Counts 3 and 6

The prosecution’s positionWhat he said on the stand
He was threatened and falsely imprisonedAsked if he was threatened, he said he was not. The only words he attributes are “don’t move” — and he agreed he was told nothing else, then used the opportunity to get away.
The occupants were unarmed victims🔴 He confirmed he picked up a hammer, and that when someone called out that a man had a weapon, “I know that was referring to me.” Mr. Jacobs reported exactly this to police on the night; the officer wrote that no hammer was seen.
Multiple armed menOne firearm was pointed at him — the one with a laser sight.
A settled householdHe arrived in early 10/2025 to help pack, knowing the house was sold. “Right around Thanksgiving, we were 90 percent packed up. We were ready to go.

Floyd Cooper — named in Count 9

The prosecution’s positionWhat he said on the stand
He was forced upstairs at gunpoint🔴 He impeached his own testimony. On direct he said he was made to go upstairs; shown his police statement from the next day he conceded he had asked to go and was allowed. “It was your decision… correct?” — “Correct.”
He was held in fearHe refused an order to get on the ground — and nothing happened. He then stayed out of the way and “nobody bothered you again until after things had calmed down.”
He was trappedHe stayed because Manzano told him to — “just stay. You can stay.”
He was confronted with a firearmThe man who told him to get down had a Taser.

Cpl. Anthony McKenna — the investigating officer

Question on cross-examinationAnswer
“You didn’t see anyone else on scene with a holster or a firearm, correct?”“That’s correct.”
“…that’s part of the reason you released everyone…?”“That’s correct.”
“…there is no one else that’s actually pointing the gun…?”“Yes.”
“…you don’t have any information that my client… knew that this individual… was a convicted felon, correct?”“Correct.”
“…was he essentially cooperative; he wasn’t resisting…?”“Correct.”

🔴 He had told a co-defendant on 19 January that no threat was made by the occupants. In court he accepted that a female occupant did shout that anyone coming up the stairs would “get shot in the face” — “I did, based on the review that was played in court.”

Ofc. Thomas Petrini — the physical evidence

🔴 The battering ram and the knife were not seized by police. The occupants found them and handed them over the following day — roughly 24 hours in the complaining witnesses’ possession before anyone took custody.

5. The documents

Click any item to open it here, or download everything.

1

Sworn testimony from all five prosecution witnesses, tested by cross-examination. Everything in section 4 above comes from this document.

PDF · 1.0 MB · court record
2

Case SNB2600042. At page 16 the investigating officer writes down that he told Mr. Jacobs he was a victim in order to keep him talking — before any warning was given.

“In an attempt to rouse Jacobs to ensure that he did not believe he was a Suspect, I asked Jacobs if he wanted to ‘press charges’ to make him think that he was a ‘victim,’ although there was no crime that was established that he could be a victim of.”
PDF · 6.1 MB · produced by the prosecution
3

Received through the company’s public contact form on 02/17/26 — after charges were filed.

“…your people came to offer $20,000, they refuse the keep away order, we are asking $100,000.00…” — and, separately: “Your company is in big trouble and if you want to stay away from the courts get back to me asap.”
4 images
4

The charges themselves. Counts 6, 8 and 9 allege Mr. Jacobs personally used a deadly weapon — “to wit, HANDGUN”. The same counts also allege, separately, that he was not personally armed. He carried a katana in its scabbard.

PDF · 0.1 MB · court record
5

Submitted six days before the incident. The applicant writes that he owns “guns, shotgun” and that “I currently carry no licensing.” Posted because it is part of the record whichever way it cuts.

PDF · 0.1 MB
6

A reading of the 216-page transcript, pulling out the ten answers the five prosecution witnesses gave under cross-examination — including an officer confirming he saw no one else on scene with a holster or a firearm, and an occupant admitting he picked up a hammer.

Document · plain reading
7

The prosecution’s initial production, as produced. Contains the officers’ own reports and the accounts each occupant gave on the night.

PDF · 6.2 MB · produced by the prosecution
8

The court’s own record of the 23 April hearing.

PDF · court record
9

Maps each statement in the sworn declaration to the specific audio clip or still frame it rests on, so any sentence can be checked against the recording it came from.

Document · index
10

What exists, where it came from, and what each item does and does not establish — including an honest account of which audio enhancements helped and which did nothing.

Document · index
11

The ownership chain. The house sold on 09/12/25 for $1,100,000; the recorded deed names the buyer. Who held possession, and when, is a live question in Count 1.

Document · public records
12

The warrant reference and the account named in it.

4 images · court record
13

The messages exchanged between Mr. Jacobs and the investigating officer, produced in discovery.

11 images

6. The people involved

Each person named in the case, what the record says about them, and where that record came from. Arrests are not convictions and are marked throughout.

How the people in this case connect to one another and to the house.

Document · overview

The complaining witness. He is himself an active defendant of the same District Attorney prosecuting this case.

Document

An occupant. Under cross-examination he admitted picking up a hammer.

Document

An occupant. His hearing testimony differs from his own direct examination.

Document

An occupant. He did not testify; his account reached the record through an officer.

Document

An occupant who arrived after Thanksgiving 2025.

Document

The investigating officer. He wrote in his own report that he told Mr. Jacobs he was a victim in order to keep him talking.

Document

Co-defendant. He brought two handguns to the police the following day, voluntarily.

Document

Co-defendant, and the man the footage shows holding a pistol.

Document

He brought Regalado to the scene, spoke the “fifteen minutes” line, and was charged with nothing.

Document

The owner who hired Mr. Jacobs — and who was not charged.

Document

The intermediary through whom the $100,000 demand arrived.

Document

Public court-record searches for the people named above, with what each search does and does not establish. Arrests are not convictions, and are marked as such.

Document · public records

Filings in a separate civil case, signed and filed by Ms. Calvert herself, carrying the same telephone number the $100,000 demand came from.

15 images · court records

7. The recordings, and what is on them

Full transcripts of all four body cameras, and the individual clips the declaration relies on.

32 minutes. Every audio exhibit below is cut from this recording. Every automated pass is shown side by side; where they disagree the row is marked, and nothing was chosen for you.

Transcript

10 minutes, before entry. Every automated pass is shown side by side; where they disagree the row is marked, and nothing was chosen for you.

Transcript

12 minutes, from the second camera on scene. Every automated pass is shown side by side; where they disagree the row is marked, and nothing was chosen for you.

Transcript

The audio, clip by clip

Twenty-three moments the declaration relies on, each one cut from the recording above. Nothing is compressed.

The still frames

Thirteen frames the declaration cites. Click to view; the full-resolution originals are in the downloads below.

Short moving clips

8. Download everything

Every document, recording and image on this page, downloadable. The evidence files are the originals — nothing has been re-encoded or trimmed.

Go to downloads →

Sourcing. Every quotation is from the reporter’s transcript of the preliminary hearing held 03/03/26–03/04/26, San Bruno Police case SNB2600042, the felony complaint, or contemporaneous messages — all posted above so anything here can be checked.

Presumption of innocence. The charges are allegations and remain unproven; no court has decided the facts. People named as witnesses are alleged victims in a pending case and are entitled to the same presumption. Testimony is quoted as given; nothing here asserts that any witness committed a crime.

Corrections. If any statement here is inaccurate, write to us and it will be corrected or removed.