I understand that in terms of prosecution, the state has the burden of proof.
But perception is everything. Proof is not needed for the state to begin an investigation, and "proof" is somewhat of a fluid question in cases of this sort.
The bottom line is, whether he can be CONVICTED or not, he can certainly be CHARGED on the basis that it LOOKS LIKE he's been having illegal sex with a minor. And, as already indicated, it's going to be harder for them to prove that they DIDN't, than for the state to "prove" that they did, even if the state is wrong.

