Thank you for your follow-up.
I'm not aware of any "three-minute rule" in the statutes or the case law, but I do know this: Most judges do NOT take kindly to a person requesting a restraining order, then ignoring it themselves.
One judge, while I was in court about two or three years ago, warned a person who really knew how to "play" the system that *if* he learned about a situation where the "victim" enticed the subject of the restraining order to call or text or e-mail her, and the guy went along with it, he would consider that to be a conspiracy
to violate a protective order (that's the name in that state) between the two people, and his sentence
for the "victim" would be a severe as allowed under the law for that misdemeanor
From a persuasion/evidence perspective, staying in a telephone conversation for more than 60 seconds would convince me that the "victim" was either not objecting to the illegal contact, or welcomed it, or was stupidly enduring verbal abuse, or was dishing out his or her own verbal abuse to the alleged offender. NONE of those possibilities would lead me to conclude that the alleged violator really did anything that should be punished.
Just beware of presenting such facts as a rhetorical question that invites in unfavorable answer: "Why WOULD so-and-so stay on the phone for so long?" Instead, complete the circle of logic with something more like: "So what can we know from so-and-so engaging me in a four-minute phone call which I have to admit I should never have made? The best answer is the truth: [he or she] was not threatened, had no problem with talking with me, and was trying the justify the lies told to this court to get a restraining order that was not justified and was never needed."
Spoon-feeding the answer is often better than leaving it up to an active imagination which might "fill in the blanks" in a way unfavorable to the party making the argument.