The State charged Peter Baldwin with driving while intoxicated in violation of § 577.010.1 Baldwin filed a Motion to Suppress evidence arising from the stop of his vehicle and his subsequent arrest, on the basis that the arresting officer was acting outside his jurisdiction. The circuit court granted Baldwin’s motion. The State appeals, arguing that the officer had authority to stop and arrest outside his jurisdic*896tion under § 70.820.5, and that the circuit court’s suppression order was accordingly erroneous.. We reverse, and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Factual Background
On the evening of December 6, 2012, City of Grandview Police Officer Matthew Earnest observed Baldwin failing to stop at a stop sign, and travelling in the wrong lane of traffic. The stop sign was located at the intersection of Martha Truman and Grandview Roads, which is at the northernmost boundary of the City of Grand-view. Baldwin continued’ through the intersection, thereby entering into Kansas City.
Officer Earnest followed Baldwin into Kansas City and activated his emergency lights approximately thirty seconds later. Baldwin signaled and pulled to the shoulder. Officer Earnest conducted an investigation, and ultimately arrested Baldwin for driving while intoxicated. At all relevant times, Baldwin and Officer Earnest were located within the boundaries of Jackson County.
The State charged Baldwin with driving while intoxicated. Baldwin moved to suppress the testimony of Officer Earnest, the results of field sobriety tests, Baldwin’s refusal of a breathalyzer test, as well as any statements made by Baldwin at the time of his arrest, because Officer Earnest had conducted the stop in Kansas City, outside his employing ’jurisdiction of Grandview. The State responded that Officer Earnest had authority to conduct the stop and arrest under § 70.820.5i By written order, the circuit court found that Officer Earnest had no authority to conduct the stop and arrest- under § 544.157; and granted Baldwin’s Motion to Suppress. The court did not address the application of § 70.820.5. The State appeals.2
Standard of Review
“Where a trial court has granted a defendant’s motion to suppress, we review the. trial court’s decision on appeal under an abuse' of discretion standard. Only if the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous will an appellate.court reverse.” State v. Avent, 432 S.W.3d- 249, 252 (Mo.App.W.D. 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Review is limited to determining whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.” State v. Stover, 388 S.W.3d 138, 149 (Mo. banc 2012). While we give deference to the circuit court’s factual findings, we review questions of law de novo. State v. McClendon, 477 S.W.3d 206, 212 (Mo.App. W.D. 2015) (citing State v. Gaw, 285 S.W.3d 318, 319-20 (Mo. banc 2009)).
Discussion
In its sole Point, the State argues that the circuit court erred in suppressing the evidence because Officer Earnest had the authority to make arrests for violations of state law throughout Jackson County by virtue of § 70.820.5.
“ ‘It is well established as a general rule that, in the absence of statute, municipal police officers have no official power to apprehend offender's beyond the boundaries of their municipality.’ ” State v. Renfrow, 224 S.W.3d 27, 31 (Mo.App.W.D. 2007) (quoting City of Advance v. Md. Cas. Co., 302 S.W.2d 28, 31-32 (Mo. 1957)). Here, the State relies on § 70.820.5 to establish Officer Earnest’s authority to effect Baldwin’s arrest outside of Grand-*897view’s city limits.3 Section 70.820.5 provides:
In addition to the emergency response powers prescribed in subsection 1 of this section, any peace officer of a county of the first classification with a charter form of government, or any peace officer of any political subdivision within any county of the first classification with a charter form of government, or any peace officer of any city not within a county, who has completed the basic peace [officer] training program pursuant to chapter 590 may arrest persons who violate any provision of state law within the boundaries of any county of the first classification or of any city not within a county.
“ ‘This Court’s, primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of .the statute at issue.’ ‘It is a basic rule of statutory construction that words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning whenever possible.’ ” State v. Jones, 479 S.W.3d 100, 106 (Mo. banc 2016) (citations omitted). “If the language is unambiguous, this Court ‘must give effect to the legislature’s chosen language.’ Only where the language is ambiguous will the Court resort to other rules of statutory construction.”. Treasurer of State v. Witte, 414 S.W.3d 455, 461 (Mo. banc 2013).
Here, the plain language of § 70.820.5 allows- a peace officer to effect arrests outside of his or her employing jurisdiction if certain conditions are met: (1) the officer is employed by a first-class county with a charter form of government, a political subdivision within such a county, or a city not within a county; (2) the officer has completed the basic peace officer training specified in chapter 590; (3) the arrest is for’a violation of state law; and (4) the arrest takes place within a first-class county or a city not within a county. The Eastern' District interpreted § 70.820.5 in the saíne manner in’ State v. Boyd, 999 S.W.2d 276 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999). Boyd held that a peace officer employed either by a city within St. Louis County, or by the City of St. Louis, had authority under § 70.820.5 to arrest an individual in St. Louis County, so long as the arrest was made for a violation of state law, and the officer had received the training specified in chapter 590. Id. at 278.
Baldwin, argues that § 70.820.5 is inapplicable for a number of reasons. First, he argues that if § 70.820.5 is interpreted to authorize officers to make traffic stops, then the, statute would be redundant of § 544.157 (which is quoted in note 3, above). Sections 70,820.5 and 544.157 address different situations, however, and we see no reason why both statutes cannot be *898applied according to their plain language. Section 544.157 gives authority to all peace officers in the State to pursue certain parties beyond the officer’s jurisdiction,-when engaged in a “fresh pursuit” initiated within the officer’s jurisdiction. Section 70.820.5, by contrast, only applies to certain peace officers, only authorizes arrests in certain locations, and is not limited to arrests made in conjunction with a “fresh pursuit.” The two statutes are not in conflict where § 70.820.5 grants greater arresting authority, to a more limited class of peace officers, in more limited locations. There is no justification for requiring § 70.820.5 to yield to § 544.157.
Baldwin also relies on the heading of § 70.820 to argue that it only applies in emergency situations. Baldwin’s argument ignores the rule that “giving effect to chapter, article or section headings is not appropriate because they are merely arbitrary designations inserted for convenience of reference by clerks or revisors, who have no legislative authority, and are therefore powerless to lessen or expand the letter or meaning of the law.” Gurley v. Mo. Bd. of Private Investigator Examiners, 361 S.W.3d 406, 413 (Mo. banc 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Gurley continues by observing that “ ‘the title of a statute is necessarily a part thereof and is to be considered in construction,’ if, ‘[b]y title to the act, [one] mean[s] the title as enacted by the legislature ....’” Id. (quoting Bultington v. State, 459 S.W.2d 334, 341 (Mo. 1970)). Bultington makes clear that the “title” which may properly be considered in statutory construction is the title which Article 3, § 23 of the Missouri Constitution requires bills to contain. The section heading on which Baldwin relies is not a “title” in this sense.
Even if it were appropriately considered, the section • heading of § 70.820 states: “Authority of law enforcement officers or peace officers to respond to emergencies outside jurisdiction — definitions— authority of certain peace officers — authority of federal law enforcement officers”4 By stating that the section addresses the “authority of certain peace officers,” in addition to the “authority of law enforcement or peace officers to respond to emergencies,” the section title plainly indicates that it provides authority to peace officers in non-emergency situations. This is confirmed by the language of the statute itself. While § 70.820.1 provides authority to a broad range of law enforcement officials “to respond to an emergency situation outside the boundaries of the political subdivision from which such peace officer’s authority is derived,” subsection 5 begins by stating clearly that the arrest powers it grants to certain officers are “[i]n addition to the emergency response powers prescribed in subsection 1 of this section.” While § 70.820.1 is plainly limited to “emergency situation[s],” it is equally clear that § 70.820.5 is not so limited. See Foyd, 999 S.W.2d at 278 (relying on § 70.820.5 to justify arrest in a non-emergency situation).5
*899Baldwin contends that, even if § 70.820.5 is potentially applicable, he was not actually stopped and arrested for state-law violations. At the suppression hearing, Officer Earnest testified that he observed Baldwin fail to stop at a stop sign and weave into the wrong lane of traffic. The State asked him .if “both of these violations from your training and experience [are] state violations -as well?” • Officer Earnest responded “Yes, they are.” Officer Earnest testified in similar fashion concerning the driving while intoxicated offense for which he arrested Baldwin:
Q. So it was an ordinance violation?
A. Initially, yes.
Q. But it’s also a state violation operating a vehicle under the impairment of either alcohol or drugs?
A. Yes, it is.
Even if Officer Earnest’s subjective awareness. were relevant, he knew that Baldwin’s actions violated both state law and municipal ordinances; there is no indication that he intended to stop Baldwin for violation of one set of laws and not the other.
More fundamentally, an officer’s subjective reasons for making a stop or arrest do not control the legality of the detention. Missouri decisions make clear that subjec-five intentions are not controlling in gauging the legality of an arrest under the Fourth- Amendment. “Constitutionally sound probable cause is not dependent upon the subjective intentions of the officer. ‘Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cáuse Fourth Amendment analysis.’ ” State v. Lane, 937 S.W.2d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 1997) (quoting Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996)).6 Baldwin cites no authority which would justify us in' applying a different rule to § 70.820.5. So long as the facts known to the officer, viewed objectively, provide probable cause to support a stop or arrest for a state-law violation, it is irrelevant whether the stopping or arresting officer had a specific state statute in min'd at the time of his or her action. In this case, failing to stop at a stop sign, and driving in the wrong' lane of traffic, constitute violations of §§ 304.015 and 304.351; similarly, driving while intoxicated is criminalized by § 577.010. If Officer Earnest had probable cause to believe these offenses had occurred,, these offenses would justify Baldwin’s stop and arrest under § 70.820.5.7
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that § 70.82Q.5 is potentially applicable to justify Officer Earnest’s stop and arrest of *900Baldwin on December 6,2012,. and that the circuit court erred by failing to consider the applicability of § 70.820.5 before granting Baldwin’s Motion to Suppress. On the existing record, it is clear that several of the ..elements necessary to rely on § 70.820.5 were established in this case: (1) Officer Earnest was employed by. a political .subdivision (the City of Grand-view) located within a first-class county with a charter form of government (Jackson County); (2) Officer Earnest stopped and arrested Baldwin for conduct which would violate state law; and (3) the stop and arrest took place within a first-class county (Jackson County).8
The- remaining. question is whether Officer Earnest had “completed the basic peace [officer] training program pursuant to chapter 590.” At the suppression hearing, . Officer Earnest testified that he had graduated from the Law Enforcement Training Institute in Columbia after completing 700 hours of training, and that he was POST certified. Because it did not address the applicability of § 70.820.5, however, the circuit court made no findings concerning whether Officer Earnest satisfied the training requirements contained in the statute. Because the trial court is free to believe or disbelieve any of Officer Earnest’s testimony, we remand to the circuit court for resolution of this issue. See Boyd, 999 S.W.2d at 278 (remanding to circuit court for determination of same question).
In an amended Motion to Suppress, and in his Brief on appeal, Baldwin raises an additional argument to support suppression: that Officer Earnest lacked probable cause to believe that Baldwin had committed any traffic offenses prior to stopping Baldwin’s vehicle. Because it found that Officer Earnest had no statutory authority to arrest Baldwin, the circuit court did not address whether probable cause existed to stop Baldwin in light of Officer Earnest’s testimony and the other evidence at the suppression hearing (which included video *901from a dashboard camera in Officer Earnest’s vehicle). Although Baldwin asks us to resolve this inherently fact-specific question in the first instance, we believe it is more appropriate to remand the probable cause issue to the circuit court. ' : -
Conclusion
We reverse the circuit- court’s suppression order, .and remand the case to- the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
All concur.