"IT WAS BRIGHTER THAN THAT"...
POLICE BEELZEBULBS EVIDENCE VS. REALITY IN PTUJ'S COURT
Background
Ptuj Police got a warrant to search someone's house because they saw a light.
In Court, the officer claimed the light was very strong.
She was asked to look up, at a row of LED lights.
"It was brighter than that," she claimed, sticking to her story.
Power density = Total fixture watts / Room floor area
Modern LED battens are highly efficient: A 40W 120 cm fixture gives ~5,000–6,000 lumens (6500K high-CRI).
For courtrooms: EU standard EN 12464-1 recommends 300–500 lux at desk/eye level for reading/writing tasks.
2 battens (conservative setup): 2 × 120 cm (40W each) = 80W total → 80W / 60 m² = 1.3 W/m²; 2 × 180 cm (50W each) = 100W total → 100W / 60 m² = 1.7 W/m². Realistic range: 1.3–1.7 W/m²
4 battens (brighter/more uniform setup): 4 × 120 cm (40W each) = 160W total → 160W / 60 m² = 2.7 W/m²; 4 × 180 cm (50W each) = 200W total → 200W / 60 m² = 3.3 W/m². Realistic range: 2.7–3.3 W/m²
~120 lm/W LEDs at 2.5–4 W/m² achieve ~300–480 lux. 40–60W each total 200–400W for 60 m² = 3.3–6.7 W/m
To reach only 300 lux in best conditions (UF=0.8): 300 / 0.8 = 375 lm/m² → 375 / 120 ≈ 3.1 W/m
To reach 500 lux in worst conditions (UF=0.6): 500 / 0.6 ≈ 833 lm/m² → 833 / 120 ≈ 6.9 W/m²
Final estimate in a typical Ptuj courtroom (~60 m²): 2 battens: 1.3–1.7
W/m²; 4 battens: 2.7–3.3 W/m².
A comparison of the Defendant's light, being 16 watts at 14 m distance, and the courtroom lighting, 1.4 m from eye/desk level
In which the following very generous assumptions are made to the benefit of the Prosecution:
No glass. In the real instance, 4 layers.
Direct line of sight to the luminaire, impossible from street level.
Only 100 watts in the Court.
Equal lumens per watt (domestic LEDs are likely lower than professional office lighting)
The 14 m distant 16 W source occupies 5% of the field of vision 7m from the window (solid angle ≈ 5% of visual field). Very generous: the calculated occupancy is 18 times lower at 0.27% [5985].
The rest of the field of vision (95%) is in otherwise streetlit darkness, which we model as very low background illuminance (~2–5 lux typical for urban street lighting at night, away from direct lampposts).
We calculate the perceived brightness (effective lux weighted by visual field occupancy) and compare it to the required 300–500 lux.
Assumptions and Setup
Inverse square law still applies for point-source approximation.
16 W source at 14 m — we keep its illuminance as calculated previously.
100 W source at 1.4 m — reference for comparison (close, bright source).
Eye-level distance to 14 m source ≈ 14 m (assumes horizontal distance dominates, i.e. the observer is looking up)
Field of view (FOV): Human binocular FOV is ~120° horizontal × ~60° vertical → total solid angle ≈ 2 sr (steradians). 5% occupancy ≈ 0.1 sr solid angle for the distant source.
Streetlit darkness background: ~3 lux average (conservative; real street lighting varies 1–10 lux in peripheral vision).
Lux to perceived brightness: For extended sources, the weighted average illuminance across the visual field approximates the perceived brightness level.
Step 1: Recalculate illuminance from each source (point-source approximation)
E = (P × η) / (4π d²) (where P = power in watts, η = luminous efficacy ≈ 120 lm/W, d = distance in meters)
16 W source at 14 m: Luminous flux = 16 W × 120 lm/W = 1,920 lm; E₁ ≈ 1,920 / (4π × 14²) ≈ 1,920 / (4π × 196) ≈ 0.78 lux at 14 m
100 W source at 1.4 m: Luminous flux = 100 W × 120 lm/W = 12,000 lm; E₂ ≈ 12,000 / (4π × 1.4²) ≈ 12,000 / (4π × 1.96) ≈ 486 lux at 1.4 m
Step 2: Perceived brightness (weighted by field of view)
Perceived illuminance ≈ (E_source × fraction_of_FOV) + (E_background × remaining_FOV)
14 m source (5% FOV): Contributes: 0.78 lux × 0.05 = 0.039 lux; Background (95%): 3 lux × 0.95 ≈ 2.85 lux; Total perceived ≈ 2.89 lux
1.4 m source (assume 5% FOV for fair comparison): Contributes: 486 lux × 0.05 = 24.3 lux; Background (95%): 3 lux × 0.95 ≈ 2.85 lux; Total perceived ≈ 27.15 lux
Step 3: How far short of 300–500 lux?
14 m source (16 W): ~2.9 lux perceived → ~100–170 times too dim compared to 300–500 lux target.
1.4 m source (100 W): ~27 lux perceived → ~11–18 times too dim for the same 5% occupancy.
Step 4: What would it take to reach 300–500 lux with the 14 m source?
To deliver 300 lux at eye level from a source at 14 m occupying only 5% of FOV: Required E_source = 300 lux / 0.05 = 6,000 lux at 14 m
Required luminous flux = 6,000 × 4π × 14² ≈ 14,800,000 lm
At 120 lm/W → power needed ≈ 123,000 W (123 kW)
For 500 lux target → ~205 kW
Conclusion
At 14 meters, a 16 W source occupying only 5% of the officers' field of vision adds almost nothing to brightness in otherwise streetlit darkness (~2.9 lux total perceived vs. 300–500 lux target).
Light framed by a window will stand out in darkness, due to both edge
contrast and "story-telling". Ptuj Police decided to exploit this for
discriminatory purposes [5956].
The Defendant's street-facing exterior was just too contrasty not to give probable cause, these observers might have explained in the warrant application - but didn't.
As with any strong source, the courtroom lighting will result in miosis.
The brightness ratio from the previous calculation (1:625) still holds — the close 100 W source at 1.4 m is vastly brighter, but even that is far below courtroom requirements when limited to 5% occupancy.
The officers' perceptions of types of lighting with which everyone is familiar are unreliable due to ideological incitements. Because they deviated from the ascertainable facts the warrant application was received on a false basis, as the impressions conveyed were exaggerated for effect and untrue.
This continued into the preliminary hearing, where the claim was
repeated and exaggerated even more. At a December 2025 hearing the
Witness protested too much yet again, although a precise translation was
unavailable.
Ptuj Court's one-sided acceptance of their wild tale neither tested nor enhanced its accuracy.
The Witness was enmeshed in the legislature's vague and false premises about cannabis growing, which the government of Slovenia has now admitted in a non-binary kind of way is perfectly ok, beneficial, and lawful. It plans to cut out the middle-man - as Slovenia's doctors are all against cannabis or fired.
In a parallel Solomon Asch-ish display of perception subdued, the
Witness chose to adjust her perceptual claims in order to make them
consistent with governments' and courts' erstwhile scientific ideology
about the smoke of Hell causing sin, degradation, vice, insanity, and
debauchery, especially when foreigners who do not even speak Slovene [1559] and politically divergent people
are involved.
Such testimony would probably be even more Asch-ish to hashish.
This reminds us that the Police are an undiscerning tool, adaptable not
only to good purposes.
They can still be trusted and held in high regard on any other subject. But their schoolyard tactics, and testimony on lighting lawlessness disavowing the laws of physics and ophthalmology, are suitable epitaphs to an age of deceit.
(Please note: In defiance of Ljubljana, age of deceit may continue as
quasi-official policy in Ptuj for 30 more years).
Electric Epilogue to the Police evidence
The Defendant's June 2020 electricity bill was €45.75 including DDV, for 156 VT units and 220 MT units, a 41.5:58.5 ratio in kWh. Unit and network charges including DDV then resembled 14.7 and 12.2 cents respectively.
On weekdays, for the 24 hour lighting cycle proposed by the Witness to be at least equally as bright as the 300-500 lux courtroom workspace standard, the range 123-205 kWh would mean a spend of 16h x 0.147 x VT kWh (€289.30 to €482.16) + 8h x 0.122 x MT kWh (€120.05 to €200.08). The least expensive weekend/holiday costs per 24 hours would be 24h x 0.122 x MT kWh, so €360.14 to €600.24.
Taking both lux values and both types of day into account, the analysis therefore finds over €2767.03 and €4611.68 weekly would have been required to make Ptuj Police's testimony and their dreams come true - and the Defendant's light brighter than the Court.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------