Maybe this is too confusing to you, so let me give you the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case of Shuttlesworth vs. The City of Birmingham. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/382/87/case.html)
In this case, a man was arrested for loitering and for disobeying a lawful order by a police officer. His conviction was overturned on both charges. On the issue of "disobeying a lawful order" the court found:
We find the petitioner's conviction under the second count of the complaint, for violation of § 1231 of the General City Code, to be constitutionally invalid for a completely distinct reason. That ordinance makes it a criminal offense for any person "to refuse or fail to comply with any lawful order, signal or direction of a police officer." Like the provisions of § 1142 discussed above, the literal terms of this ordinance are so broad as to evoke constitutional doubts of the utmost gravity.
What this Supreme Court decision did was create a need for States, counties and cities to clearly define what lawful orders are.
Just like the Constitution spells out what the Federal Government has the authority to do, so State, county and city laws and ordinances spell out what authority police officers have. They do not have the authority to tell someone to put out a cigarette.
It's not there.
You misread the case. The case is talking about the broadness of a CITY ORDINANCE not state law. Again, there is a big difference.
You must not live in TX, because in TX, a cop can order you to put out a cigarette. It is common practice and upheld in court.