In her second assignment of error defendant contends the court erred in denying her motion to suppress the state’s exhibit number one, a J. C. Higgins .22 semi-automatic rifle, on the grounds that the gun was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. We agree and grant defendant a new trial.
*35On 20 April 1983, defendant filed a motion to suppress alleging, inter alia:
The grounds for the suppression of this evidence are as follows:
(a) Its exclusion is required by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of North Carolina in that it resulted from an unreasonable search and seizure and in addition, it was obtained as a result of a substantial violation of the provisions of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes in that the sworn testimony of the officers involved at the probable cause hearing clearly show that the defendant was arrested at her home on December 28, 1982 and was taken to the Rutherford County Jail; thereafter, other officers proceeded to her residence without the authority of a search warrant and under no recognized exception to the requirement of a search warrant and entered the defendant’s premises without the consent of the defendant and without her being present and in violation of law and thereafter, seized the .22 rifle, J. C. Higgins model, which the defendant now seeks to suppress, together with any test results relating to said rifle; that said intrusion into the defendant’s home without the authority of a search warrant was unlawful and a substantial violation of her rights and in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and in violation of Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes.
Following a hearing on the motion the trial court made the following pertinent findings of fact and conclusions of law;
That on December 28, 1982 at 3:00 p.m., Deputy Michael Summers of the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department went to the home of John Preston Jolley and Hazel Mae Jolley to investigate a possible shooting; that he found John Jolley in the den on the floor and EMT personnel were working on him.
That he saw a .22 rifle in a chair in the den area.
That the Defendant, Hazel Mae Jolley, was in the kitchen area in a squatting position.
That Summers asked her to sit in the patrol car, that he thought getting her out of the house would help her emo*36tional state, that he thereafter helped rope the area off to secure the scene, that he spoke with the defendant in his patrol [car] and advised her of her rights, on a form used by the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department.
That Detective David Philbeck had arrived at the Jolley residence about five minutes after 3:00, and Summers turned control of the premises over to him.
That Philbeck went inside the residence where he made photographs, seized the rifle, spent cartridges, a lead fragment, made a diagram, and visually observed the premises.
From the foregoing findings of fact the Court concludes:
1. That a search warrant was not required for Detective Philbeck to enter the Jolley home and conduct an investigation of the shooting of John Preston Jolley; and that the evidence seized is competent and should be admitted into evidence.
Based upon these findings and conclusions the motion to suppress was denied.
Searches conducted without properly issued search warrants are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, unless they fall within certain specific exceptions. Among these exceptions are exigent circumstances and consent to search. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed. 2d 564, reh. denied, 404 U.S. 874, 92 S.Ct. 26, 30 L.Ed. 2d 120 (1971). The trial court did not find that either of these exceptions existed, but denied the motion to suppress because he concluded that “a search warrant was not required for Detective Philbeck to enter the Jolley home and conduct an investigation of the shooting.” The state first contends that the trial court was correct based upon the theory that the search was conducted under exigent circumstances. Secondly, the state contends that Detective Philbeck had consent to search the house. We cannot agree with either of these contentions.
*37The exigent circumstances argument must be rejected in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed. 2d 290 (1978). In Mincey a gun battle erupted during an undercover drug buy at defendant’s apartment. Once this happened officers stormed the apartment and rendered aid to the wounded. Within ten minutes of the shooting, detectives not involved in the undercover transaction arrived at the apartment and began a four day search of the premises. Among the items seized during the search were illegal drugs. Defendant was convicted of assault, homicide and narcotics offenses. The Arizona Supreme Court, in upholding the narcotics convictions, held that the warrantless search of defendant’s apartment was permissible since it was part of a routine homicide investigation. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed defendant’s conviction holding that the warrantless search violated defendant’s constitutional rights. In its decision the Court said:
We do not question the right of the police to respond to emergency situations. . . . [t]he Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid. Similarly, when the police come upon the scene of a homicide they may make a prompt war-rantless search of the area to see if there are other victims or if a killer is still on the premises. . . . But a warrantless search must be ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation . . .’
(Citations omitted.) Id.
In the case at bar, when Detective Philbeck arrived at the scene, defendant and the victim had been removed, and the scene, as Philbeck found it presented no exigent circumstances. Under the rule of Mincey v. Arizona, supra, the legality of Detective Philbeck’s search could not be based on exigent circumstances.
The state also contends that Detective Philbeck was in the house with the consent of the defendant. “It is well settled that a person may waive his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure. A consent to search will constitute such a waiver, only if it clearly appears that the person voluntarily consented, or permitted, or expressly invited and agreed to the search.” *38 State v. McPeak, 243 N.C. 243, 90 S.E. 2d 501 (1955). When the state relies upon consent as a basis for a warrantless search, the police have no more authority than that they have been given by the consent. 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 8.1 (1978). The trial court did not find that there was a consent to search. When a trial court makes no findings of fact relating to an issue and there is no conflict in the voir dire testimony “the necessary findings are implied” from the court’s admission of the evidence. State v. Biggs, 289 N.C. 522, 223 S.E. 2d 371 (1976). Under the rule of Biggs we imply that the trial court found that consent was given in light of the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. The court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal only if they are supported by competent evidence. State v. Biggs, supra.
In the case at bar the only consent given was consent, in the form of a phone call, to come into the house to aid the victim. We do not believe that this invitation can properly be used to show consent to a search of the premises by an officer who was not involved in aiding the victim. There was nothing in defendant’s conversations with Deputy Summers to indicate that defendant consented to a search by Detective Philbeck, and defendant never spoke to Detective Philbeck at all. We are unable to agree that there was any evidence to support a finding that defendant consented to Philbeck’s search.
Having found no exigent circumstances or consent which would justify a warrantless search, we hold that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. We therefore reverse defendant’s conviction and remand the cause for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Judge Phillips concurs.
Judge Braswell dissents.