In People v. Johnson, 379 Ill. App. 3d 710, 885 N.E.2d 358, 319 Ill. Dec. 87 (2008), the officer knew that the driver was revoked, had a RDP, and was driving on a Sunday afternoon. Apparently, the Johnson court wanted him to know that his restricted driving permit (RDP) was not valid on Sunday afternoon. If the officer had proof positive that defendant's RDP was not valid on this Sunday afternoon, he would have had enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the type of evidence that is required for a Terry stop. The appellate court in Johnson must have agreed that the officer's articulated suspicion was reasonable, otherwise, how could it have noted that the officer "was likely correct"? Johnson, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 712, 885 N.E.2d at 360. If, in fact, the officer had nothing more than a hunch, how could three appellate judges unanimously agree that he was likely correct? The Johnson court described a reasonable, articulable suspicion and then labeled it as a mere hunch.