Driver Is Sent Back to Jail for Killing Cyclist : Crime: Judge takes action against 19-year-old Lakeside woman who served 31 days for the fatal drunk-driving accident and was released on a home-surveillance program.

A 19-year-old Lakeside woman who served 31 days in jail after driving drunk and killing a bicyclist was ordered Wednesday to return immediately to jail by a judge, who said it was never his intent for her to be admitted to an electronic-surveillance program.

“I will put into effect what I had intended initially,” San Diego Municipal Judge Terry Knoepp said. “The home detention is inappropriate in this case, and that’s what I meant at the time we entered the order.”

Knoepp’s ruling came after a 4 1/2-hour court hearing in which the state attorney general’s office sought to return Renee Reid, the daughter of a district attorney’s investigator, to jail, arguing that the killing of a 34-year-old husband and father last July deserved a stiffer punishment.

“The message sent in this case . . . is that, if you come from a good family and your dad perhaps works for the district attorney’s office, you can get released and spend time in the comfort of your own home,” said Gary Schons, the senior assistant attorney general who helped prosecute the case. “That’s no message.”

Reid will probably surrender to sheriff’s authorities this morning and serve out the balance of her five-month term. She has served a month in jail, two months under electronic surveillance and, with credits for being a good inmate, is scheduled to complete her sentence in September. However, she will be out of jail for some period while she undergoes medical treatment and must make up that time.

Her attorney, Lee C. Witham, called the ruling “devastating” because she now holds a certain celebrity status and will attract the unwanted attention of other inmates.

In the same courtroom where Knoepp first sentenced Reid last November to a year in jail and five years’ probation with a $1,500 fine for the death of Phil Cramer, family and friends of Cramer’s crammed the room, hoping to see Reid sent back to jail.

After Knoepp agreed, they broke out in broad smiles and made feeble attempts at congratulating each other, knowing that their joy could easily be transmitted as callous to the family of the 19-year-old.

“It’s the best we can hope for,” said John Drogitis, Cramer’s best friend who was biking next to Cramer when he was hit. “I feel a lot better, big-time. I’d feel even better if she was put back for a longer amount of time.”

Cramer’s widow, Lori, who lives with their 7-year-old son, Sean, said she was surprised by Knoepp’s ruling because “he was so lenient with his original sentence” of one year. “I hope this makes a difference for someone else who is thinking about drinking and driving,” she said.

On a warm evening last July just before sundown, Reid’s speeding car crashed into Cramer, who had been bicycling alongside Drogitis on a Lakeside frontage road.

The car, spinning sideways at 70 m.p.h. on a curve designed for 40 m.p.h., missed Drogitis completely but knocked Cramer into the middle of adjoining Interstate 8.

The crash crushed Reid’s jaw, and she needs extensive surgery. Although sentenced last November, she was given until Jan. 17 to begin her term because of the holidays and medical treatment.

Sheriff’s Department officials decided days into her sentence that Reid would make a good candidate for the home-surveillance program, where she could wear an electronic transmitter strapped to her ankle that notifies the Sheriff’s Department if she moves 50 yards out of range. She started the program Feb. 18 and has not violated its provisions.

During Wednesday’s hearing, corrections officials said Reid neither received preferential treatment because her father is a senior investigator for the district attorney’s office nor was her placement in the program out of the ordinary.

The Times reported that a sheriff’s captain made the decision, contrary to normal procedure, and that male convicts, under the jurisdiction of the county Probation Department, are required to serve at least half their sentences before being considered for the home-surveillance program.

Perhaps the most surprising statement in court Wednesday came from Knoepp himself, who said he had intended all along to prohibit Reid from being placed in the home-surveillance program by checking a box on a sentencing form that indicated she was not to be paroled.

Although correctional authorities testified that parole, which allows almost unlimited freedom, and home surveillance, which allows for few approved trips outside the home, are far different, Knoepp said he saw them as basically the same.

Going a step further, Knoepp said he does not believe that home surveillance constitutes custody, despite an argument from Sheriff Jim Roache, who testified Wednesday that he supported his subordinates’ decision in the Reid case.

Knoepp referred to a letter he received from a 14-year-old boy related to Lori Cramer, who urged that Reid be returned to jail.

“He wrote, ‘Your honor, being restricted to my house is what happens when I stay out late after curfew. Is that the message you want?’ ” Knoepp said, concluding that “the answer, quite obviously, is no. It is not a deterrent.”

The case highlighted several criminal justice issues at once.

Judges, law enforcement authorities and politicians debated jail crowding in San Diego County in a new light because of public reaction to the woman’s release.

Although the jail population often exceeds its federal court-ordered cap, jailers routinely double-bunk the county’s facilities to squeeze in as many inmates as possible. A new jail in East Mesa, which can house 1,500 new inmates, has not been opened because there is no money.

On radio and television talk shows, and in newspaper opinion pages, San Diegans discussed with vigor the fairness of jail sentences, especially for crimes in which someone is killed. Inmates who have received more severe sentences for nonfatal offenses complained bitterly about the inequity.

The issue of privilege--whether middle-class or upper-class white offenders are more likely to benefit from light sentences than others--has also been raised.

Jailers and counselors in the Reid case consistently referred to her release to electronic surveillance as occurring because she came from a “good family,” which critics took to mean that she was white and the daughter of a district attorney’s investigator.

And the electronic surveillance program itself came under scrutiny. Although Sheriff’s Department officials stressed that Reid was still being incarcerated, albeit at home, members of the state attorney general’s office said the comfort of being able to sleep in her own bed, watch television, entertain friends and eat meals with her family amounted to little punishment.

Reid’s offense is the most serious of anyone released to home surveillance, officials said, although the Sheriff’s Department has refused to provide details about those in the program, how much of their sentence was served in jail, why they were accepted and when they were released.

Citing state penal codes, attorneys said the records of criminal offenders are not public records and cannot be released.

Representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in San Diego County used Reid’s case to illustrate their belief that, despite a barrage of publicity about the dangers of drinking and driving, society still does not take it seriously. They said the 31-day sentence sent the wrong message to those who consider taking a few drinks before getting behind the wheel.

“This ruling does wonders to our cause,” said Kathy Antonacci, president of MADD in San Diego County. “We want everyone to know that early release is not acceptable. This was a serious crime and should have been treated as such.”

Reid’s attorney said she should not have been returned to jail and suggested that a media-generated “circus atmosphere” pressured Knoepp to rule the way he did.

“This 19-year-old is not a danger to anyone. She’s not a hardened criminal,” Lee Witham said. “She’s right out of high school. I think Judge Knoepp was stampeded by the media, and that affected his decision. Whatever he wants to think, the home-surveillance program is custody.”